Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Wool Marketing (Committee)

Major Kimball: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the recommendation of the Scottish Hill Sheep Farming Committee that steps should be taken to establish a marketing organisation for Scottish wool.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I have considered this recommendation in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The question of a marketing organisation for Scottish wool raises issues affecting Great Britain as a whole and in view of the special features of this particular industry my right hon. Friend and I have decided to set up a small independent committee of which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has agreed to act as Chairman, to advise us on the major questions arising. The terms of the remit are rather long, and with my hon. Friend's permission I am circulating them together with the names of the members of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Kimball: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a committee of representatives of wool producers has already been set up by the producers and has had many meetings, and is in favour of a Wool Marketing Board for Scotland? Will he give an assurance that that committee will be able to give full evidence

before the new Committee which is being set up under the chairmanship of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove?

Mr. Johnston: Most certainly. It is highly desirable that they should tender that evidence.

The terms of reference are as follow:
To examine the pre-war arrangements for the marketing of wool by producers in Great Britain, and the changes introduced under war-time control; and having regard to the views and recommendations of the Committee on Hill Sheep Farming in Scotland, as set out in their Report of December, 1943, to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to consider whether the organisation of wool marketing after the war could be improved through the medium of a scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931–1933, or by any other means, and whether conditions and requirements in England, Wales and Scotland respectively are such as to necessitate separate and different arrangements in regard to wool marketing in any of these countries; and to report accordingly.

The members of the Committee are:

The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot).
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans).
Mr. J. Bowman, District Secretary, Amalgamated Engineering Union.
Mr. T. G. Henderson, Secretary, Scottish Milk Marketing Board.
Sir Harold G. Howitt, D.S.O., M.A., F.C.A., J.P., Member of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Teachers (Emergency Training Centres)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has taken any steps to set up emergency training centres for the training of teachers, or whether he proposes to utilise existing facilities for this purpose.

Mr. T. Johnston: The National Committee for the Training of Teachers are satisfied, after full inquiry that the existing training centres are sufficient to provide for the training of the teachers required for prospective developments in Scottish Education, except as regards teachers of physical education. The Committee are at present endeavouring to obtain premises for the establishment of additional courses of physical education.

Mr. Lindsay: Could my right hon. Friend say whether any steps have been taken to get into touch now with men and women in the Forces, with a view to prospective training?

Mr. Johnston: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to put down that question, or allow me to write to him on the subject. I am not in a position to say now.

Camp Schools

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the camp schools are still in operation; what percentage of the accommodation is filled; and on what basis children are selected to attend them.

Mr. T. Johnston: Four camp schools are still in operation and approximately 42 per cent. of the accommodation is occupied. Children still remaining in the camps were sent there under evacuation scheme arrangements and those who can return home will do so at the end of this month. I am at present in consultation with the three large local authorities who have had most experience in the use of these camps as to their future possible use.

Mr. Lindsay: While I am glad to know that my right hon. Friend is in touch, is it not pretty serious when one of the camps has closed down and less than half are full? Will he use this golden opportunity to start some public boarding schools in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: That hardly arises out of the particular Question on the Order Paper. I think my hon. Friend would be well advised, knowing the difficulties of the matter, to allow the negotiations presently in progress to proceed.

Building Industry (Recruitment)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the first boys to complete the two-year pre-apprenticeship scheme to the building industry came from Ayrshire schools and that considerable difficulty was experienced in absorbing these boys into apprenticeship; and what steps he is taking to see that this scheme throughout Scotland provides a genuine transition from education to industry.

Mr. T. Johnston: Of the 16 boys who completed a two-year pre-apprenticeship course for the building industry at Ayr at the end of last session 12 had been absorbed into the industry by the autumn, and 2 into other employment, leaving 2 unplaced. With regard to the second part of the Question, a scheme has been drawn

up by the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Labour and National Service in consultation with the Health Departments as a temporary measure to overcome present difficulties in the way of recruiting and employing apprentices. The scheme aims at providing building work for the practical training of apprentices under craft instructors employed by building firms of standing. If boys have to be chosen from among a number of applicants, those completing pre-apprenticeship courses will receive prior consideration. Particulars of the scheme are given in a recent Circular issued by the Department of Health for Scotland, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Highlands and Islands (Medical Service)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the special conditions in the Outer Hebrides, with regard to transport and communications and geographical factors, will be borne in mind in the framing of health legislation affecting Scotland; and if he can make a statement as to what conclusions have been come to regarding the Highlands and Islands medical service.

Mr. T. Johnston: I am at present discussing with the various interests concerned the shape of the proposed new National Health Service generally and until those consultations are further advanced I am not in a position to make any statement about the Highlands and Islands medical service. The remarkable success which has attended that service and the other conditions to which my hon. Friend refers will be carefully borne in mind.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of anxiety among medical men concerned and others that the special place accorded to the Highlands and Islands medical service may not be continued under the national service? Can he give an assurance on the matter?

Mr. Johnston: I do not know any cause for that apprehension and anxiety. I have done by best to dispel it in the course of consultations.

Mr. McKinlay: Could we have a guarantee that the administration of this scheme will not be transferred to London?

Mr. Johnston: I think the answer is in the affirmative.

Rural Housing (Western Isles)

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered proposals or representations from the county councils of Ross and Cromarty and Inverness for rural house-building reconstruction and improvement in the Western Isles; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. T. Johnston: I have received no proposals or representations such as are referred to in the Question but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I shall have inquiry made.

Mr. MacMillan: Will my right hon. Friend consider jogging these two county councils, who have such a bad past record in regard to housing, to get a move on, in view of the approaching end of the war?

Mr. Johnston: The Question on the Order Paper is whether I have considered proposals or representations from these councils. I have not had any. Circulars have been sent to all county councils.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that Scottish county councils should be jogged from London?

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that could very well be done from the Scottish Office in Edinburgh?

Hydro-Electric Equipment (Scottish Firms)

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the needs of the hydro-electrical schemes in the Highlands for electrical equipment and supplies for the various works can be adequately met by Scottish firms; and whether they are receiving priority in the placing of orders for these supplies.

Mr. T. Johnston: No constructional schemes have yet been laid before Parliament but the Board will naturally make every effort as and when schemes come into operation to have their requirements in equipment and supplies met so far as possible from Scots firms.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Secretary of State not consider laying it down as part of the scheme that the fitments should come from Scotland, because we have

had so many cases, where Scottish industry is concerned, in which the work has been done in England?

Mr. Johnston: There are obviously parts of the equipment of which, under present conditions, it is impossible to obtain supplies from Scottish firms, and we do not want to hold up the scheme.

Hill Sheep Farming

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far arrangements have been made to implement the major recommendations of the committee on the reorganisation of the hill sheep industry.

Mr. T. Johnston: I am glad to be able to say that recent discussions with the various interests concerned have shown a large measure of agreement with the major recommendations of the Committee's Report, particularly with those bearing on the rehabilitation of hill sheep farms, and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, as to action which might usefully be taken. I may also refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given to-day to a Question on the issue of wool marketing.

Major McCallum: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great anxiety and worry that are caused to hill sheep farmers throughout Scotland and would-be tenants of hill sheep farms, owing to the uncertainty of action or no action on this Report?

Mr. Johnston: There is no justification whatever for any anxiety as to non-action in the matter. We set up the Committee; we have done everything we can to stimulate agreement by the various interests in the matter, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that action will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Samuel Commission (Recommendations)

Mr. Alexander Walkden: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether effect has been given to all the recommendations for improving the coalmining industry contained in the Report thereon of the Royal Commission presided over by Viscount Samuel, which was issued in 1026 [Cmd. 2600].

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): It is not practicable within the limits of Question and Answer to give details, but broadly speaking effect has already been given to most of the Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that scarcely anything has been done in the matter of amalgamation in the last 18 years?

Major Lloyd George: The Coal Commission which, under Part II of the Act, was charged with the duties of amalgamation, as I said in reply to a Question some days ago, decided in its first Report not to proceed with the matter during the war.

Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sure that everything possible has been done that should have been done in the last 18 years?

Major Lloyd George: I am glad to say that my responsibility does not go quite so far back as that.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Will the Minister pay particular attention to the recommendation of the Samuel Commission which says:
We come reluctantly and unanimously to the conclusion that the costs of production with the present hours and wages are greater than the industry can bear.

Domestic Supplies

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the supplies of coal to the metropolitan borough of Stepney are much below the allocation allowed by his Ministry; and if he will state the steps proposed to be taken to ensure that persons in badly-bombed areas will be assured of domestic fuel supplies.

Major Lloyd George: The four coal depots in Stepney were affected by a recent railway embargo during one week in November, and merchants' receipts during that month were slightly below their allocation. The deficiency was only six per cent., and this has subsequently been offset by the despatch of extra coal to these depots from Government stock. Adequate reserve stocks are held by the merchants at these depots. The allocation of supplies to the London region takes account of the special needs of occupiers of bombed premises, and merchants and

local fuel overseers will give special consideration to the needs of such consumers. In this connection, I would refer particularly to the provision made for such consumers in the Priority Deliveries Scheme, which I announced on 6th November.

Mr. Edwards: How is it that, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a scheme for priority customers, in the borough of Stepney alone for the past four weeks there have been for the merchants 750 tons below their allocation? Is he not aware that the number of registered customers has increased, and that if we are to carry on as in the past four weeks there will obviously be a shortage of coal in Stepney?

Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not so. The cause of the shortage was an embargo between 14th and 20th November. The actual stocks held at this moment are equal to four weeks' supply. We have also arranged for withdrawals from Government stocks to get over any difficulty in previous allocations.

Mr. Edwards: In view of the fact that my information is different from that of my right hon. and gallant Friend, and in view of the importance of the subject, I have no alternative but to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if the regional and group production directors have taken any steps to improve the quality of coal supplies in the Burnley area so that householders may get more coal and less stone per cwt.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. Steps have been taken to impress on all colliery managements in the Burnley area the importance of keeping to a minimum the quantity of dirt in the coal produced, both by avoiding the excessive filling of dirt below ground and by eliminating it, by picking, washing, etc., on the surface.

Mr. Burke: May I take it that we can expect a very considerable improvement?

Major Lloyd George: I sincerely hope so.

Sir Percy Harris: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that a very large percentage of the coal being distributed in London contains large lumps of stone,


which are quiet useless for heating purposes and are extremely heavy?

Major Lloyd George: I shall be glad to have my right hon. Friend's information. I appreciate that there has been some deterioration, although, with exceptions, not more than one would expect during the war, because all the picking belts, where stones are removed, are very short of labour. If our coal officers are given information of cases which are unjustified, we will pursue them.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that the quality of the coal we are getting in London is very bad? In fact, the coal I am getting will not burn without being mixed with wood.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Why is the best coal going to Italy? Could not the best coal be kept here, and the stone be sent to Italy?

Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is entirely contrary to the facts. There is no question of the best coal going out of the country.

Joint Resources Board Report

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the confidential report on the coal industry is not made available to those able to benefit by it; how the news of its existence was allowed to leak out; and if any reports of this nature are in existence with reference to other industries.

Major Lloyd George: On the first two parts of the Question, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 14th November. As regards the last part of the Question, I am informed that there are no other comparable reports.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that very misleading statements, particularly a recent answer by the Home Secretary, as to the cost of coal production of this country and in the United States are being made, those statements being based on a dollar-sterling rate of exchange which is at least double the real rate? Therefore, the American costs given should be at least doubled.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL ALLOWANCE

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the

serious shortage of taxi-cabs in London, he will make a moderate concession in the petrol allowance for taxi-cabs.

Major Lloyd George: When relaxation of the petrol rationing scheme becomes practicable, the position as regards taxi-cabs will be considered; but as I have already stated in reply to similar Questions, supply and other factors do not at present make it possible to relax the scheme.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the present petrol allowance permits taxis to be used only for a limited number of hours a day, which causes considerable inconvenience, especially at railway stations? Is it not possible for some moderate concession to be made, even now, to ease the situation?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot add anything to what I have said. As I said, as soon as it is practicable we will do everything we can to put these schemes into operation, but at present it is not possible. I have pointed out that, because of the special position in London, taxi-cabs receive a higher allowance there than in the provinces.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Minister satisfied that every military vehicle in London is making necessary journeys?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot say.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that most of the taxis in London are being used for sightseeing?

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider the issue of petrol coupons to anyone volunteering to take back to their homes men in the Forces on leave whose trains arrive after the last omnibus has gone.

Major Lloyd George: In view of the changed situation regarding leave for the Armed Forces in the New Year, I am in consultation with the appropriate Departments on this matter, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the petrol supply situation must remain an important factor in reaching a decision.

Mr. Dugdale: When may we expect the results of those conversations to be announced?

Major Lloyd George: Fairly soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (GERMAN AND JAPANESE NATIONALS)

Mr. Alexander Walkden: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many German and Japanese subjects, respectively, are now resident in Eire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): According to figures supplied by the Eire authorities, the information is as follows: The official staff of the German Legation is composed of six persons, together with three typists. The total number of Germans registered under the Eire Aliens Order is 284, of whom 136 are refugees. In addition, there are 223 Germans who are interned. The figure as regards Japanese is three persons, all of whom are connected with the Japanese Consulate.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (POST-WAR MIGRATION)

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that there is a widespread belief in the Union of South Africa that His Majesty's Government are likely to discourage emigration after the war; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this respect.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am not clear how the misapprehension to which my hon. Friend's Question refers, arose. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have made it clear to His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and have stated publicly in Parliament on more than one occasion, that, notwithstanding the trend of population in this country, they are for their part very ready to co-operate with Dominion Governments in schemes for assisted migration after the war, both as regards men and women demobilised from the Forces and as regards other suitable migrants. The matter is at present under discussion with Dominion Governments.

Sir H. Williams: Is this policy known as the flight from Beveridge?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Ex-Service Men (Retail Shops)

Captain Strickland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he

will take any necessary steps to secure that no new shops shall be allowed to be opened within a reasonable radius of a similar shop occupied at the time of his or her call-up for military service by a unit of His Majesty's Forces until due notice has been served on that person if still living, so as to ascertain whether it is the intention of that unit to return to or reopen that shop, in which case no such newcomer shall be permitted to open within a specified time.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The procedure suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would, I fear, lead to great delay. But every ex-trader on the Board of Trade Register will be entitled to reopen his shop after the war, and, meanwhile, licences to open new shops are only granted where these are required to meet the public need or to enable men disabled in the war to establish themselves in business.

Sir Joseph Lamb: In that case, would it not be possible for the man who has received a licence to obtain the whole of the goodwill?

Mr. Dalton: I have given special instructions to our local committees who advise me on these matters that they are to take account of the interests of any traders who are on the Board of Trade Register; but my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would involve great delay, because it would mean in some cases communicating with men in Burma before we could do anything.

Mr. Bowles: Is there a similar committee to advise my right hon. Friend so far as the London area is concerned?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, we have a committee for London.

Captain Strickland: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these men stationed overseas will have less chance of coming back and opening their shops unless some protection is given?

Mr. Dalton: We shall not allow any competition with those men unless the committee holds that there is an urgent need among the local population.

Mrs. Tate: What was the percentage of small traders on the Register in 1939?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

South Africa and Southern Rhodesia

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that no facilities are given to British exporters to the markets of the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, in both of which markets are being captured by other countries; and if he will provide these.

Mr. Dalton: Our exports to South Africa and Southern Rhodesia have fallen, owing to war conditions, but by a smaller percentage than our total export trade. I hope to be able to make a statement on export trade in the course of the Debate to-morrow.

Sir G. Shakespeare: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless action is taken quickly these markets will be lost to us permanently?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is there any truth in the allegation that, at the instance of the Department of Overseas Trade, contracts offered to this country are from time to time passed to the United States?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I do not think there is any ground for such a statement.

Toys (Price)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to stop the present widespread profiteering in toys.

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the subject of the price and quality of Christmas toys.

Mr. Dalton: The prices of toys have been controlled, since April, 1943. There have been a number of prosecutions for overcharging, and I will gladly look into any cases which are brought to my notice. I have asked local price regulation committees to give special attention to this matter during the Christmas season. As regards quality, the range of available materials is very limited, and much ingenuity is being shown by toy makers.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that, in practically every toyshop, fantastic prices are being asked for rubbishy articles, and that this is seriously penalising the children of the country, many of whom will be unable to have any Christmas presents at all this Christmas?

Mr. Dalton: I have taken special steps to increase the quota, and this will increase the supplies of toys available. The public ought not to buy rubbish, but should make complaint in the proper quarter.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Rugby, who is not too well blessed with this world's goods, was charged 9s. at the Army and Navy Stores recently for a box of wooden squares covered with rough paint, and will he take steps to see that justice is done?

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister also aware that this matter affects the children of serving men abroad, as it is impossible for the mothers of these children to buy toys, and that these women are much too worried already to complain about the matter; and will he not instruct his officers to make complaints, instead of leaving it to the poor women to do so?

Mr. Dalton: We do our best in the matter, but the governing factor is the shortage of materials. I have done my best to increase the supply of toys; I have made Orders from time to time regulating the prices to be charged for them, and I look to the public to co-operate in bringing cases of overcharging to the right authorities so that we can deal with them. There have been no fewer than 45 prosecutions for overcharging.

Mr. John Dugdale: May we know what penalties were inflicted in the cases where the prosecutions were successful?

Mr. Dalton: Not without notice.

Exports

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the letter sent to him by the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce on the subject of export and post-armistice trade, he will now make a statement dealing with the points raised.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I hope to have an opportunity during to-morrow's Debate.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any British exports have up to the present shown an increase since the beginning of the year; and, if so, whether he can give the details.

Mr. Dalton: Some British exports have increased and others decreased since the beginning of the year. I hope to publish, as soon as possible in the New Year, particulars for the whole of 1944, corresponding to those recently published for 1943 and earlier years.

Children's Footwear

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is a shortage of children's gymnasium goloshes; and what steps are being taken to meet the demand.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Hynd) on 7th November, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that there are manufacturers with stocks of these things, which are held up—I can give him the names—and that they are being badgered by education authorities, but cannot release them?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. We have made provision, as I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Attercliffe, for any education authority to get permits to enable them to obtain supplies. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any stocks held up, I will take steps to get them dispersed.

Major McCallum: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, when arranging the distribution of the new supply of children's Wellington boots to rural areas, he will ensure that the rural areas of the Scottish West Highlands and Islands are included in the distribution in view of the exceedingly wet climate there.

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade how soon the new supplies of children's Wellington boots will be available in the shops; and approximately how many pairs of boots will be available in rural districts of the county of Essex.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Cook: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of rubber boots for Norfolk schoolchildren; and if he will take steps to improve the supply.

Mr. Dalton: Some of these rubber boots should reach the shops before Christmas,

but I must repeat that the total supply is very small. I hope that each of the rural areas mentioned in these three Questions will receive its share.

Major MacCallum: May I ask the Minister if, in view of the exceptionally wet weather in Scotland, he could allot a slightly bigger proportion to these areas?

Mr. Dalton: I am afraid that on grounds of rainfall there would be many applicants.

Mr. Driberg: Will there be, roughly, enough boots and shoes to go round and to provide one pair for each school child?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I explained in reply to an earlier Question, that the supply is very small indeed, and I am giving preference to rural areas for that reason.

Mr. De Chair: Is the Minister aware that Italian prisoners of war are arriving in Norfolk wearing good rubber boots, and would it not be preferable that these boots should be given to British agricultural workers?

Mr. Dalton: This is a Question about Wellington boots for children. In any case, the Italians are equipped, not by the Board of Trade, but by the War Office.

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there exists a shortage of children's boots, sizes nine and 12, in the North Riding of Yorkshire; and whether he will take the necessary steps to secure that an adequate quantity is made available to this county.

Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend will let me know where this shortage is reported, I shall be glad to have local enquiries made.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a shortage has occurred in the North Riding for the last 12 months, and that no action has been taken hitherto?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me of individual areas in the North Riding.

Mr. Thorne: Could the Minister give any reason why large sized boots, such as 10 and 11, are not being made? Why is it impossible for an hon. Member to buy a pair anywhere?

Mr. Dalton: The matter of sizes is determined by the manufacturers. We are responsible for the total allocation of leather, and they seek to allocate it between the sizes to meet public needs.

Aluminium Ware Manufacture

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences for the manufacture of aluminium ware have been granted recently and when may the public expect to find supplies in the shops.

Mr. Dalton: Twenty-one firms have applied for licences and these are now being issued. Supplies will be small at first, but some aluminium hollow-ware should be in the shops early in the New Year.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that a statement was made that there would be supplies of these goods immediately, and that only two firms have got licences so far?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. That is not the case. There were only 39 firms who made hollow-ware in the country. All were written to and asked if they wanted licences; 21 replied and are getting licences.

Russia (Negotiations)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement on the negotiations that have taken place with representatives of the U.S.S.R. on trade between the two countries and on the consultations between representatives of various industries, firms and the Russian representatives.

Mr. Dalton: I have at present nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) on 16th November.

Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the discussions and consultations have been satisfactory?

Mr. Dalton: They are going forward. There are great complications on both sides, and special considerations to be taken into account, but they are being pressed forward actively.

International Cartels

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state in how many British

cartel agreements did German industry participate before the war; whether he can give a list of the industries; whether such agreements have been subject to examination by official quarters; and in how many cases was there a clause according to which, in the event of war, cartel arrangements will be resumed after the termination of hostilities.

Mr. Dalton: A substantial number of such agreements is known to the Board of Trade, and I will consider the possibility of drawing up a list of the industries concerned. I know of no case where such an agreement contains a clause providing for resumption after the termination of hostilities.

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade why an exit permit was granted to Sir Clive Baillieu to attend the International Business Conference at Rye, New York; and whether the views of His Majesty's Government are in any way represented by the Report presented by him in favour of the continuation of international cartels.

Mr. Dalton: Sir Clive Baillieu attended this Conference as one of a number of representatives of British trade organisations, in response to an invitation issued by various trade associations in the United States. Nothing said or done at the Conference in any way commits His Majesty's Government.

Sir H. Williams: Is this gentleman connected with any firm that belongs to international cartels?

Mr. Dalton: I could not say.

Toilet Paper

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of toilet paper; and if he can take steps to arrange for an increased output.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on the 7th November, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production has already increased the allocation of material for this purpose. Since then, a further substantial increase has been arranged, but it will take a little time for the additional supplies to reach the shops.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that a great deal of this paper is being used for printing pamphlets and other documents?

School Blouses and Shirts (Materials)

Major Kimball: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the acute shortage of plain coloured or white spun silk or thin cotton materials suitable for school blouses and shirts; and what steps is he taking to increase the supplies of these types of materials.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have details I shall be glad to investigate the matter.

Wool Control

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the control of wool he will endeavour to simplify the procedure of his Department in the designation, classification and allocation of wool, with a view to enabling the trade to carry on their business more expeditiously.

Mr. Dalton: It is not quite clear to me what my hon. Friend has in mind; but, if he will give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister appreciate that, in the opinion of the trade, most of their problems are due to the chaotic control of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Dalton: When they meet me, they place the blame elsewhere.

Mr. De la Bère: My right hon. Friend will hear more about it.

British Inventions, Russia (Patent Protection)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the U.S.S.R. is not a signatory of the Berne Convention, he will take steps to ensure patent protection of the specifications of British goods sent to the U.S.S.R., or advertised or described in official Russian technical journals.

Mr. Dalton: Patent protection in the U.S.S.R. for British or other inventions is afforded by Soviet law.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that he is the President of the Board of Trade for Great Britain, and stand up for the rights of British traders?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but no representations have reached me that any British trader is suffering in regard to this matter.

Blankets and Sheets (Allocation)

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in allocating supplies of blankets and sheets, he will give preference to the development areas.

Mr. Dalton: Preference is given, not to particular areas, but, as stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) on the 7th November, to particular classes of people with special needs.

Mr. Storey: Will the Minister remember that, in the development areas, the stocks were very low, owing to the depression, even before the war; and will he therefore give some preference to these areas?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I know that only too well, but I repeat that preference is not given to areas as such, but to particular classes of persons, and, if there is a particular area with large numbers of such persons, that area will get more.

Mr. Bowles: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I know persons who cannot get them? What is the position? How do they get them?

Mr. Dalton: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to read the rather full answer which I gave on 7th November, to which I have referred?

Paper Supplies (Allocation)

Mr. Erskine-Hill: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the purpose of the setting up of the Moberley Committee; and whether that Committee is to decide the type of book which it is proper to encourage by a grant of paper.

Mr. Dalton: This Committee advises me on the use of the small reserve of paper set aside for books of special importance which publishers cannot produce from their own quotas. The Com-


mittee's recommendations are largely confined to reprints of standard scientific, educational and religious books.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: However well the Committee may work, does not this imply an interference with what is published, upon which a great many are agreed; and in view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman, as and when extra supplies become available, see that both the pool and those particular cases of individuals receive the greater part of the extra supply?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. and learned Friend has another Question which covers part of that point. This Committee consists of publishers who advise me what books of special importance could be published by publishers who have already exceeded their quota. I think it is a good Committee, and it has done very useful work. The total of paper supply in the reserve is only 8½ per cent. of the total allocated to books.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no need for all this shortage of paper and that we are burning an immense amount of straw, which could be utilised for making paper?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the intended destination of the increase in the paper ration for the current licensing period; and if he intends increasing the quantity given to the pool.

Mr. Dalton: Of the extra 1,433 tons for the current four-monthly period, 800 tons are for the Services Post-war Education Scheme, 433 tons go to increase the publishers' quotas from 40 to 42½ per cent. of pre-war usage and the remaining 200 tons are for the special reserve, on the use of which the Moberley Committee advise me.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the members of the pool were consulted on the proportion which could be given, and if not, would it not be much better that they should have a larger proportion?

Mr. Dalton: I think that the allocation is as fair as we can make it, in view of the great pressure that we get, for example, for the production of post-war

education books, the demand for which cannot be met by publishers from the ordinary permit.

Mr. Graham White: Has the right hon. Gentleman been advised that, owing to an alteration in the regulation with regard to over makes, the addition to supplies of the recent allocation will be almost negligible; and is he aware that the suggestion that this is any effective contribution to meeting the demand for books is as sensible as trying to irrigate the Sahara with a watering-can?

Mr. Dalton: The position is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I think that the new allocation will result in a general increase. I will gladly discuss the matter with him, as I know he has it very much in mind.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not possible to obtain anywhere in London dictionaries either Spanish or French, and will he divert some paper for that purpose?

Mr. Dalton: All that I can do is to pass on that information to the Moberley Committee, which I shall be very glad to do.

Mr. Burke: Is any of this paper going to the manufacture of boots and shoes?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that, in view of the importance of this subject and in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making perhaps a clearer and fuller statement, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible occasion?

Mr. Speaker: I have often pointed out that it is not a point of Order when notice is given to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

Leather (Boot and Shoe Repairs)

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can release more leather for boot and shoe repairs.

Mr. Dalton: I shall be glad to allot more leather for repairs, as soon as supplies improve. Meanwhile, I have issued substantial supplies of rubber composition to repairers.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Convalescent Depot, Midlothian (Accommodation)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for War why men discharged from hospital, after being wounded in Normandy, are living in tents at a convalescent depot in Midlothian, while in nearby camps prisoners of war are comfortably housed in huts.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The accommodation at convalescent depots was increased in order to take patients from North West Europe by the erection of marquees. The floors are covered with tarpaulins; they are heated by open fires and lit by electric light. I understand that convalescents are in fact no longer accommodated under canvas, but I am verifying this. The hutted accommodation in which the prisoners of war are housed lacks special facilities and is generally unsuitable for convalescents.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that moisture seeps in, and the men's blankets become damp; and is this a proper way to treat men who have just had hospital treatment—to turn them loose under canvas, after they have served at the front?

Sir J. Grigg: The accommodation situation in this country is so difficult that I am afraid that cases of this sort are bound to occur from time to time. I do not think that they occur very often and I hope—and I am verifying my information—that it has now stopped in this particular instance.

Mr. McKinlay: May I have an assurance that men sent to convalescent camps will have a first priority for any hut accommodation that may be available; and could not prisoners be put under canvas?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot give a categorical assurance of that sort as one does not know the circumstances in each case, but I will certainly give the assurance that we will do our utmost to avoid these occurrences.

Mr. Gallacher: Surely there are a number of large houses in the country which are not occupied and which could be made available for this purpose?

Sir J. Grigg: The whole pressure on me from this House for the last six months has been to release houses as far as possible, in order to make accommodation available for evacuees from London.

Home Leave Scheme

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War what construction is being put on the words, "who have borne the main burden of battle in the fighting line," for the purpose of qualifying for the home leave scheme, announced by the Prime Minister on 17th November.

Sir J. Grigg: The primary object of the scheme was the encouragement of the fighting man. Indeed before I put the scheme forward at all I considered very carefully whether in view of the fact that only a limited number of places could be created it ought not to be confined to troops in contact with the enemy. This, however, would have meant that some theatres would be cut out of the scheme altogether and I came to the conclusion that this could not be sustained, particularly as after five years of war, the base and lines of communication units tend to contain a higher proportion of men with long service overseas than the infantry. Moreover, I am very conscious that separation from home bears hardly upon those who are not actually in the front line as well as upon the fighting men. Quotas were therefore allotted to all the theatres concerned. As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 28th November, Commanders-in-Chief were advised to have regard to service in contact with the enemy and length of service overseas but, subject to this, full discretion was left to Commanders-in-Chief.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend said the other day that he would consider letting the House know on what principles the different commanders in different theatres were using their discretion. Has he been able to take that matter further?

Sir J. Grigg: I have not got the details from the more distant theatres yet. I understand that, in Italy, for the first convoy, the men chosen have in fact all come from troops in contact with the enemy. In the Middle East, they are chosen by ballot among people of between three and four years' service overseas, but I will supplement that later on, if I may.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why publicity was given to the case of a man coming home who has been much less than three years abroad, as this has caused grave irritation among wives whose husbands have been away for much longer periods?

Sir J. Grigg: I know that, and it was explained in the Prime Minister's original announcement that a system of leave primarily designed to encourage the men who are actually fighting, and a system of repatriation after long service overseas not confined to fighting men, do create certain inequalities of that sort. The only alternative would be to have no leave scheme at all.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman place on record the importance of being careful in regard to the dates of the men going overseas, as in case of mistake great disappointment is felt by the men?

Sir J. Grigg: I have not heard that there have been mistakes of that sort, but I will certainly go into the matter.

Captain Cobb: Is the Minister aware that the discretion given to commanding officers resulted in Burma in men of the Royal Corps of Signals having their leave postponed, and in view of the great disappointment caused, can he tell us whether any steps can be taken in the near future to give leave to those men who have been overseas on active service for many years?

Sir J. Grigg: There is a Question later on the Paper by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and I am giving a full answer to it.

Discharged Men (Civilian Clothing)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War if all men being discharged from the Army are now receiving civilian clothing on the full demobilisation scale.

Sir J. Grigg: As far as I am aware all men entitled to an issue of civilian clothing are receiving the full scale.

Eire Citizens (Parliamentary Franchise)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities he gives citizens of Eire, now serving in the British Army, to have their names placed

on the register as electors for the Parliament of Eire.

Sir J. Grigg: I have received no request for any special facilities to be made available for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDERS AND REGULATIONS (MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake that in connection with all future departmental and delegated legislation the responsible Ministers concerned shall make a short explanatory statement on the floor of the House of Commons to enable a comprehensive record to be contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT and to ensure that hon. Members are conversant with all such legislation introduced in this way.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir. As explained by the Home Secretary on 26th May, 1943, it is already the practice to make a statement to the House on any subordinate instrument involving issues of considerable political importance. It would not, however, be possible or desirable to extend this practice to orders and regulations of every kind.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is not possible for hon. Members to follow many of the regulations which come up? Would it not facilitate hon. Members following these regulations, and also act as an additional safeguard against measures being introduced which have not been properly scrutinised by hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: As far as I can make out, I think it would increase the procedure which my hon. Friend already considers too elaborate.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN LONG-RANGE WEAPONS

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the Allies have adequate plans to prevent the Germans carrying out secret experiments in the further development of long-range weapons after the war.

The Prime Minister: I certainly think it ought to be well looked after. We have a lot of regular people on the job and so have our American and Allied friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (PAYMENTS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the nature of the agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the U.S.A. for the payment of goods and raw materials outwith the Lend-Lease agreement; whether payment will be made out of our foreign assets, or will the U.S.A. accept goods and material produced in Great Britain which may be made available for export.

The Prime Minister: I must thank the hon. Gentleman for making me acquainted with the word "outwith" with which I had not previously had the pleasure of making acquaintance. For the benefit of English Members I may say that it is translated, "outside the scope of." I thought it was a misprint at first.
It is our wish that our current dollar expenditure, including payment for goods and raw materials not obtained under Lend-Lease, should be met so far as possible out of our current dollar receipts in respect of goods and material produced in this country and otherwise. As a consequence of the arrangements which have been made, I hope that this purpose will, to a large extent, be attained.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that that statement requires considerable amplification and elucidation, and that the point which concerns hon. Members—especially myself—and traders in this country is whether this is going to be one-way traffic which will have the effect of increasing the load of our foreign debt, or whether America will be prepared, in return for goods she sends to this country to accept goods from us? That is the simple point.

The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend is going a little outwith the Question which he put.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that to indulge in the one-way traffic is outside the scope of what is necessary in order to rehabilitate British trade?

The Prime Minister: I do not think the statement I made to the House the other day, which was agreed in detail with our American friends, gave any sense of disappointment, but the special application of it, will, of course, be watched most carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPERATIONS, FAR EAST (CASUALTIES)

Captain Gammans: asked the Prime Minister how many casualties have been suffered in the war against Japan by the British Empire and U.S.A. armed Forces, respectively.

The Prime Minister: The figures are not immediately available. Furthermore, several Governments are concerned and would have to be consulted; and it is for consideration whether this information could be given without helping the enemy. So far as I am aware the United States Government have not published any such figures, but the brunt of the war against Japan is of course being borne by them.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT TRADE POLICY

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the grave anxiety which at present exists among export manufacturers at their inability to re-open those overseas markets whose needs can be met without hindrance to the war effort; and what steps he is proposing to take to co-ordinate the activities of the various Government Departments concerned to remove this anxiety and facilitate the development of our export trade before it is too late.

The Prime Minister: The questions to which my hon. Friend refers are too wide to be dealt with within the compass of a Parliamentary answer. But there will be a full discussion to-morrow during the Debate on export trade and the industrial change-over from war to peace. I hope the House will not be over optimistic.

Mr. Bowles: Could we have a Debate on the import trade as well?

The Prime Minister: On the spur of the moment, I should have thought that imports and exports have such a well-established relation, that there must be a large borderland which would be common to both.

Sir W. Wakefield: Shall we be told to-morrow that active steps are being taken to co-ordinate the work of the various Government Departments to promote our export trade?

The Prime Minister: I ought not to anticipate the speeches which will be delivered by Members of the Government.

Sir G. Shakespeare: Is the Prime Minister aware that there seems to be a complete ban against all British exports to South Africa, even when questions of Lend-Lease are not involved? Would he give his personal attention to it?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly asked to be kept informed on that point, which is most pertinent to the Debate fixed for to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S BADGE (PUBLICITY)

Major Studholme: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider giving further publicity to the King's Badge in view of the fact that so few members of the public are yet aware of its significance or of its appearance.

The Prime Minister: The wearing of the Badge by those to whom it is granted is, I think, the best form of publicity for an award of this nature. But I hope also this Question and Answer will be a help.

Major Studholme: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he will consider having illustrations of the King's Badge put in the Press, because so very few people seem to know what it is when they see it worn in the button-hole?

The Prime Minister: I think the Press will no doubt take notice of the very reasonable suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I should certainly think it desirable, and a help, if the newspapers published a reproduction of this decoration, which is so honorably earned, in order that people may wear it with all the respect it deserves.

Major C. S. Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has now considered the possibility of extending the award of the King's Badge to all those honourably discharged from H.M. Forces?

The Prime Minister: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Civil Defence Services (Post-war Credits)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Govern-

ment will reconsider their policy of granting to certain sections of the Civil Defence Services a post-war credit of 6d. per day as from 1st January 1942, and grant instead this post-war credit to all sections of the Service, including the civil dead mortuaries staff, from a date coinciding with the commencement of the Battle of Britain.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): No, Sir. The terms and purpose of the scheme of post-war credit for service in the Armed Forces, as outlined in the White Paper of February 1942 (Cmd. 6336), are incompatible with the grant of similar credit for service under the normal conditions of civil employment or for service before the 1st January, 1942, under Civil Defence conditions.

Mr. Kirby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present arrangements are causing grave dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Civil Defence Services? Will he be good enough to reconsider this?

Mr. Peake: I do not know about that, but obviously we cannot do more for the Civil Defence personnel than we are prepared to do for members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Kirby: Will the Government be good enough to consider the granting of this post-war credit to the Armed Forces as well as the Civil Defence Services?

Mr. Peake: I am afraid I cannot commit the Government on that.

War Damage (Re-sited Factories)

Sir G. Shakespeare: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the War Damage Commission will make a cost-of-works payment for the rebuilding of a war-damaged factory on another site in the same area if such is in accord with the proposed town planning scheme.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. Under the provisions of the War Damage Act, 1943, the War Damage Commission can only make a cost-of-works payment in respect of works executed for making good war damage to the hereditament which has sustained the damage. If, for whatever reason, the war damage to the hereditament cannot be made good, the Commission cannot make cost-of-works payment but has power to make a value payment.

Sir G. Shakespeare: Would my right hon. Friend endeavour to clear up some of these glaring anomalies which arise between the War Damage Commission policy and the policy of the planning authorities?

Mr. Peake: This matter was very fully discussed during the Debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill. Clearly it would be unfair that the owner of war-damaged property should receive more under two separate Acts of Parliament combined than the owner of undamaged property taken over for planning purposes should receive under one Act alone.

Mr. De la Bère: Is that not vague and unsatisfactory?

Post-war Budget Proposals

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give, as far as he can, a pro forma Budget for the year after the cessation of hostilities in Europe.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. It would be premature to do so at this stage.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it right to introduce Bills with such heavy commitments as those indicated in the Gracious Speech, when the Government cannot know what the post-war economic and financial position of the country will be?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking for an expression of opinion instead of a statement of fact.

Motor Vehicles (Taxation)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the representations made to him for the revision of the basis of motorcar taxation.

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a statement with regard to the revision of motor-car taxation.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir, not yet.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask my right hon. Friend, when?

Mr. Peake: As my right hon. Friend said about a fortnight ago, "At an early date in the present Session."

Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend give us a definition of "an early date"?

Mr. Peake: It is not quite the same thing as a very early date.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, quite seriously, that this question of a revision of motor vehicle taxation has a profound bearing on the revival of our motor industry, and that any statement which is to be made should not be unduly delayed? It ought not to await the Budget Statement itself.

Mr. Peake: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no suggestion that it should await the Budget Statement. There will be a statement, I expect, very shortly.

National Insurance (Income Tax)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes that in future social insurance benefits, old age pensions and children's allowances, are to be aggregated with the recipient's total income for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. Peake: The broad principle which the Government have in mind regarding the treatment for Income Tax purposes of contributions and benefits under the National Insurance Scheme is, as my right hon. Friend indicated in his speech in the House on 3rd November, that contributions should be deducted and benefits should be included in computing the taxpayer's taxable income. I cannot at this stage add anything to that statement.

Mr. Edwards: Will the Minister bear in mind that when one purchases an annuity, a great part of it is treated as return of capital, and that only a small proportion is taxed?

Mr. Peake: I will certainly bear it in mind, but I am not quite sure that that is the fact.

Sterling Balances, India

Mr. Touche: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to continue the existing arrangements as regards blocked sterling balances in India by which the sterling payable by this country automatically increases with rises in local costs, as this system places a premium on inflation.

Mr. Peake: These questions are kept under continuous review both by His Majesty's Government and by the Government of India. The House will realise


that the Government of India have every inducement to counteract inflation and will be aware that they have in fact been successful in stablising the price level in India during a period of almost 1½ years. I must add that it is quite incorrect to describe these balances as blocked. They are available for expenditure anywhere within the sterling area.

Sir Alfred Beit: In view of the fact that there is no such body in India as the Select Committee on National Expenditure, what steps are available to His Majesty's Government to see that they are not being over-charged for goods and services provided by India?

Mr. Peake: I do not think that it is only upon the activities of the Select Committee on National Expenditure that we depend for seeing that we do not pay too much for proper services.

National Income, 1938–39

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Treasury's estimate of the total national income for the financial year ending 5th April, 1939.

Mr. Peake: The net national income for the year in question is estimated at approximately £4,640,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (W.L.A. CANDIDATES)

Mr. Naylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if members of the W.L.A. are to be allowed to enter for the Civil Service examinations on the same terms as and concurrently with members of the Forces.

Mr. Peake: Under the Report of the Committee of the Civil Service National Whitley Council (Cmd. 6567), members of the Women's Land Army will not be eligible for the vacancies reserved to ex-Servicemen and ex-Servicewomen, since the definition of ex-Service adopted by the Committee for this purpose included only the Services defined in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, that is to say, the Armed Forces, the corresponding Women's Services, the Merchant Navy and Mercantile Marine.

Mr. Naylor: Is there any possibility of that decision being reconsidered?

Mr. Peake: I do not think so, because if we were to admit all those for preference who have been engaged in war service of any kind then, obviously, there would be no real preference left for men who have been doing the actual fighting.

GREECE (DISTURBANCES, ATHENS)

Dr. Haden Guest: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information on the occurrences in Athens on Sunday, 3rd December, when the Greek police are reported to have fired on a demonstration of children and youths, and what are the casualties, in killed and wounded?

The Prime Minister: So far as has been ascertained, the facts are as follow: The Greek organisation called E.A.M. had announced their intention of holding a demonstration on 3rd December. The Greek Government at first authorised this but withdrew their permission when E.A.M. called for a general strike to begin on 2nd December. The strike, in fact, came into force early on 3rd December. Later in the morning the E.A.M. demonstration formed up and moved to the principal square of Athens, in spite of the Government ban. On the evidence so far available I am not prepared to say who started the firing which then took place. The police suffered one fatal casualty and had three men wounded. The latest authentic reports give the demonstrators' casualties as 11 killed and 60 wounded. The demonstration continued during the afternoon but there was no further shooting, and by 4.30 the crowd had dispersed and tranquility was restored.
It is deplorable that an event like this should take place in Athens scarcely a month after the city's liberation and feeding. Greece is faced with the most desperate economic and financial problems apart from the civil war which we are trying to stop. We and our American Allies are doing our utmost to give assistance and our troops are acting to prevent bloodshed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh," and "Hear, hear."] Sometimes it is necessary to use force to prevent greater bloodshed. The main burden falls on us, and the responsibility is within our sphere. That is the military sphere agreed upon with our principal Allies. Our plans will not succeed unless the Greek Government


and the whole Greek people exert themselves on their own behalf. If the damage of four years of war and enemy occupation is to be repaired, and if Greek life and economy are to be rebuilt, internal stability must be maintained and, pending a general election under fair conditions, the authority of the constitutional Greek Government must be accepted and enforced throughout the country. The armed forces must be dependent on the Greek Government. No Government can have a sure foundation so long as there are private armies owing allegiance to a group, a party or an ideology instead of to the State and the nation.
Although these facts should be clear to all, the Left Wing and Communist Ministers have resigned from the Greek Government at this dangerous crisis rather than implement measures, to which they had already agreed, for the replacement of the E.A.M. police and guerrillas by regular national services.

Mr. Gallacher: Why did they resign?

The Prime Minister: I say they have resigned. I am stating facts in answer to the Question. I thought the House would rather like to have a full answer. In addition, the E.A.M. leaders have called a general strike, which is for the time being preventing the bread which we and the Americans are providing reaching the mouths of the hungry population whom we are trying to feed.
Our own position, though as I have said it is a burden, is extremely clear. Whether the Greek people form themselves into a monarchy or a republic is for their decision; whether they have a Government of Left or Right is a matter for them. But until they are in a position to decide, we shall not hesitate to use the considerable British Army now in Greece, and being reinforced, to see that law and order are maintained. It is our belief that in this course His Majesty's Government have the support of an overwhelming majority of the Greek people. Their gaping need is to receive relief for their immediate requirements and conditions which give them a chance of earning a livelihood. In both of these ways we wish to help them, and we are working with experts, financial and otherwise, to do so; but we cannot do so if the tommy guns which were provided for use against the Germans are now used in an attempt

to impose a Communist dictatorship without the people being able to express their wishes.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: While appreciating the great delicacy of the situation, I desire to ask the Prime Minister two questions arising out of his statement. Is he aware of the very grave anxiety felt in all sections in this country with regard to what has taken place, and will he undertake to keep the House informed from time to time in the immediate future so that we may know what the situation is from day to day? Will he also take care that the Government watch their step in this matter, so that their action in suppressing disorder shall not take the form of support of any one faction? We all recognise that law and order must be maintained but there is evidence, I think, that mistakes have been committed on both sides. This terrible shooting affair On Sunday suggests at any rate that a mistake was made by the Greek Government and that they are to blame for that action. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, if the Armed Forces of the Allies are to be used in support of the Greek Government, the British Government will impress upon them the need for a conciliatory policy and not assume that, because they have the support of the British Forces, they can take such action as they like?

Sir H. Williams: Are we not engaged in a Debate rather than asking questions?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is that the newspapers give full and continuous reports from Greece and, in the event of anything important occurring which is not public property, I shall always be ready to answer any questions. I have no other wish than to keep the House fully imformed. I quite agree that we take a great responsibility in intervening to preserve law and order in this capital city which was so lately delivered by our troops from the power of the enemy. It would be very much easier for us to stand aside and allow everything to degenerate, as it would very quickly, into anarchy or a Communist dictatorship, but, having taken the position that we have, having entered Athens and brought food and made great efforts to restore its currency, and done our utmost to give it those conditions of peace and tranquility which will enable the Greek people as a whole to


vote on their future, we do not feel that we should look back or take our hands from the plough. We shall certainly not be able to do so but we shall certainly take care that the Greek Government, which we are supporting—or perhaps acting in conjunction with would be a better expression, because General Scobie is for the moment in charge of order—is not used to fasten any rule of a faction—I think that is the word—on the Greek people. They will have the fullest opportunity of a free election. The Government of Mr. Papandreou three days ago represented all parties, including the Communists and E.A.M., whose representatives left suddenly on the eve of a quite evident attempt to overthrow the settled Government.

Dr. Guest: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think some further information might be given? Is it not a fact that the demonstration which was fired on consisted of 200 unarmed children and youths? I quote from "The Times" correspondent. Is it not a fact that the firing went on for an hour, savagely and violently—I again quote from "The Times"—and is it not further a fact that there is a great deal of feeling in Greece that the collaborationists have not been dealt with, and that the security battalions which were appointed by the Germans to fight against the Greek movement are being maintained by the present Government; and is it not time that the whole Athens police force was disarmed, as they have shown themselves unworthy and untrustworthy to keep the peace?

The Prime Minister: As far as the incident is concerned, I have told the House that His Majesty's Government reserve judgment upon it. It is a shocking thing that there should be firing by police forces on unarmed children. That is a matter which we should all reprobate. We should also reprobate the massing and the leading of large numbers of unarmed children to a demonstration, the scene of which had been banned by the Government, in a city full of armed men and liable at any moment to an explosion. So much for that. The other point of substance is the question of the security battalions. That is not to be dismissed as easily as the hon. Member has done. They came gradually into existence very largely, according to evidence which I have most carefully sifted, during the last

year, in a large measure to protect the Greek villagers from the depredations of some of those who, under the guise of being saviours of their country, were living upon the inhabitants and doing very little fighting against the Germans. I could continue indefinitely to deal with these points but I am sure that I should be trespassing upon the indulgence which you, Sir, have already shown me.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I press the Prime Minister to answer a question put by me, which I do not think he did quite answer? I appreciate that the British Government are holding the ring for some future election in Greece, and the question I put to him is: Will he assure us that, so far as the British Government are concerned, any support that we give to the Government of Greece is accompanied by recommendations that the Greek Government should adopt a conciliatory attitude towards all sections in future?

The Prime Minister: Oh, yes certainly, a conciliatory policy, but that should not include running away from, or lying down under, the threat of armed revolution and violence.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether, in addition to the military authorities, we have a political representative to advise the Government on political problems in Greece—a representative in first contact with the situation? I have in mind someone similar to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan), who represents our interests in Italy. Is there anybody in Greece in a similar position?

The Prime Minister: We have an Ambassador in Greece with whom we are in hourly consultation. Telegrams arrive with the greatest frequency, the wires not having been cut—so far. The right hon. Member for Stockton is attached to the staff of General Wilson, the Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean——[HON. MEMBERS: "Alexander."] Well, General Wilson, the former Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean, who is at this moment carrying on until the changeover takes place—and is frequently referred to by him for advice on the political aspects of the military measures which he has to take.

Dr. Guest: I wish to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the grave situation which has arisen in Greece


as a result of the firing by the Athens police on a demonstration on Sunday, 3rd December, as a matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I could not accept the Motion. Quite obviously the hon. Member can put down an Amendment to the King's Speech.

Mr. A. Bevan: There is an Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with foreign policy, which I understood from you, Mr. Speaker, last week, you do not propose to call. If an Amendment to the Gracious Speech is put on the Order Paper relating to this matter, could we have your guidance as to whether you would call it for Debate?

Mr. Speaker: I will consider it. That is all I can say now.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that, may I respectfully suggest that, in the circumstances, the reason for not accepting the Motion for the Adjournment falls? We either should have an opportunity for an immediate Debate or, in my respectful submission, you, Sir, are obliged to address yourself to the question whether this is a matter of immediate and urgent public importance. May I further point out that there is deep disturbance in the country on this matter, and deep anxiety among the Armed Forces lest it may appear that they are to be used for purposes for which they were not originally mobilised? May I therefore suggest to you, Sir, that you accept the Motion for an immediate Debate?

Mr. Buchanan: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, in reference to your answer to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) that we can debate this matter on the King's Speech by means of Amendment, that that is not saying whether the matter is urgent or not. The Motion suggested by the hon. Member says that the matter is of sufficient urgency to be debated to-day, and not some other day. I put it to you that this matter is so urgent that the Debate ought to take place at once, whatever view one has on the merits of the subject, on which I express no opinion—I submit that this matter is so gravely urgent that not another day should elapse before the House of Commons discusses the facts. After the cross-examination of to-day the Government must see that it is urgent, not merely for the House of Commons to state its

view, but for the Government's position to be stated. May I ask, Sir, that you should make a statement on the point of the urgency of this matter and not whether we could have a Debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech?

Mr. Bowles: May I put one other consideration to you, Sir, and that is that General Scobie's ultimatum expires at 12 o'clock to-morrow night, which adds to the urgency?

Sir P. Harris: Would it not be quite in Order, if anybody were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, to raise the subject to-day?

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in the general Debate upon the King's Speech the matter can be raised to-day.

Mr. Buchanan: May I point out that while a Member may be called, that is not a reply to the issue? The issue is that the House of Commons wants to discuss a matter of definite urgent importance—not as one of a group of important matters in the King's Speech, but as a definite matter of urgent importance. Could I ask you, Sir, to give a definite Ruling, because this is urgent and important?

Mr. Speaker: I gather that the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) wants to discuss the firing by the Greek police upon a Greek procession. No Minister in this House can answer for that, and therefore it is not a definite matter. The question, therefore, becomes rather a general matter of policy towards the Greek Government, and that is hardly a definite matter.

Dr. Guest: My moderation in framing my question in order not to excite antagonism, should not be accepted as an excuse for putting off a matter which is, in fact, of very urgent public importance, because it involves the possible issue of civil war in Greece. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he is not fully informed of the situation—and neither am I. We want to debate this matter and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and I appeal to the House, that we should have the Adjournment in order to debate this matter now, because it is one on which I believe this British House of Commons could come to a unanimous agreement, which would be very helpful in bringing the issue to a close.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand you to have said, Mr. Speaker, that this question can be raised by any hon. Member in the course of the general Debate to-day on the Address. May I ask, with great respect, whether it is not the case that you agreed that to-day should be devoted to the subject of social insurance, and if that Debate should be interrupted by a long discussion upon events in Greece would not that be a violation of the agreement that has been reached by hon. Members? My second point is that you have said that this is not the responsibility of the British Government, but in fact the Prime Minister has admitted that General Scobie is in charge.

The Prime Minister: Pardon me. I should not like my hon. Friend to be in error. In fact, General Scobie was not at the time exercising the plenary responsibility which has now been taken.

Mr. Shinwell: That in no wise affects the point I am putting. General Scobie is our military representative on the spot. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has stated that there is a Resident Minister on the spot. Unfortunately, the Resident Minister is on the back benches opposite, the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan).

The Prime Minister: I never said he was on the spot. In answer to a general question on political guidance being available for the military in the theatre now concerned, I said that in Athens we had an Ambassador and that there was available for General Wilson the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan), who had been specifically mentioned; but I was speaking of the general principle on which our affairs are carried on, and not with reference to the exact location of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: As my right hon. Friend has interrupted me, I will put my point of Order in another form. If the Prime Minister seeks to absolve His Majesty's Government of all responsibility, that is one matter, but if he accepts a measure of responsibility for the events in Greece and for general administration in Athens is not that a matter for this House to consider?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has put two questions which really cross each other out. He asked, first, whether to-day was not

to be devoted to national insurance, and would it not therefore be a breach of faith, so to speak, to turn aside to something else. I had intended that to-day should be devoted to national insurance, but if hon. Members of that party wish to take the Debate away from national insurance to Greece it can be done. As far as the responsibility of the British Government is concerned, that has nothing to do with me.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I call attention to the fact that the Prime Minister in his statement specifically said that the Forces under the control of His Majesty's Government will be used to prevent civil disorder in Greece, and that reinforcements are already on the way, so that His Majesty's Government are now, through the Prime Minister, accepting responsibility for the maintenance of order and for the disarming of the forces of E.A.M.? Does not that, therefore, fix the responsibility directly upon this Government and upon this House? Therefore, may I respectfully suggest to you that all the conditions that are required for the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) are satisfied—that here is a matter of urgent, immediate and public importance which ought to lead you to accept the Motion which he has moved to enable the House to debate this matter at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Speaker: I regard this matter as very close to an operation of war, and if we were to have Motions for the Adjournment on definite matters of urgent public importance where it is a question of the conduct, or possible conduct, of a general in control in a theatre of war, I think that would be a very great mistake.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I want to join in pressing the urgency of accepting the Motion for the Adjournment on the ground that General Scobie attacked the demonstrators before the demonstration took place. General Scobie is our military representative there, and it is conceivable that his action may have encouraged the rashness and folly of the police. That is a responsibility of this Government and this House, and I suggest that the matter be accepted as a subject to be discussed on the Adjournment.

Mr. Neil Maclean: In view of what has happened in Greece and in Belgium, and also, earlier, in France, is it not necessary for this House to discuss whether the policy that is being pursued in the countries that we are liberating is the proper policy, and whether we are not allowing men to be placed in power who were actually working with the Fascists in the past, and, consequently, are not acceptable to the people of those countries?

Mr. Speaker: That question is far too wide to be considered as a definite Motion.

Sir Richard Acland: Is it not clear that this House should have an opportunity for the widest possible Debate on foreign affairs during this week? If the Amendment in my name on that subject is inadequate, then I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would favourably consider an Amendment on this issue if it were put on the Order Paper to-night by a sufficient number of hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to treat this matter as one of definite, urgent public importance. Hon. Members who object can always put down a Motion criticising my Ruling.

Mr. Driberg: May I, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, put one point arising out of what you said? Several hon. Members on both sides of the House who would normally take part in such a Debate on foreign affairs, have already exhausted their right to speak in the general Debate on the Address. Is that not another reason why it is desirable that they should be given this opportunity?

AGRICULTURE (PRICES)

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to inform the House of new arrangements for fixing agricultural prices. I would like to emphasise that these arrangements were decided upon before the recent meeting of the Agricultural Wages Board. I am afraid it is rather long but it will govern procedure for the next four years. In my speech in the House on 26th January, 1944, I said that there were three questions relating to the fixing of agricultural prices by the Government which the Government were willing to discuss with representatives of the industry:


(1) The collection of economic and financial data which would be acceptable both to the Government and the industry as a basis for price discussions.
(2) The procedure for using these data.
(3) The means of relating the system of guaranteed markets and fixed prices to the four-year production plan, including the harvest of 1947.

After discussion with the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Workers' Unions, agreement has been reached on each of these questions. The economic data to be used for price discussions between Departments and the National Farmers' Unions will be based on financial accounts relating to different types of farming and sizes of farms, and statistical material relating to costs of production, collected by means acceptable to the Government and the industry. These data will be made available to the workers' unions who will be given an opportunity of expressing their views. In February of each year there will be a review by the Agricultural Departments in consultation with the National Farmers' Unions of the general financial position of agriculture in the United Kingdom, based on the above economic and financial data and any other relevant statistical material which is available.
The price decisions reached by the Government following this review will apply (a) as regards crops, to the prices of crops from the harvest of the following calendar year: i.e. following the review in February, 1945, prices will be fixed for the crops from the 1946 harvest: (b) as regards milk, to prices from 1st October of the current calendar year: and (c) as regards livestock and eggs, to prices from 1st July of the current calendar year. It is contemplated that during the period of the four-year plan, ending in the summer of 1948, some change will be necessary in the character of our agricultural output to meet changing national requirements in the transition from war to peace. Broadly, the change will mean a gradual expansion of livestock and livestock products and a reduction from the high war-time levels of certain crops for direct human consumption.
The Government have already announced their desire to encourage a sub-


stantial increase in milk production and a revival in the rearing of cattle and sheep for meat production. To this end an assured market and guaranteed minimum prices are being provided for milk, fat cattle, sheep and lambs, and calves produced during the four years up to the summer of 1948. Actual prices will be considered at each annual February review, and subsequently fixed by the Government. The shortage of feeding stuffs occasioned by the war has necessitated a substantial reduction in pig, poultry and egg production. It is the intention of the Government to encourage an expansion of production of these commodities to the fullest extent permitted by the supplies of feeding stuffs which can be made available. A market will be assured throughout the four-year period for all fat pigs and eggs which are offered for sale. Prices will be considered at each annual February review and subsequently fixed by the Government. An assured market will be maintained for cereals, main crop potatoes and sugar beet up to and including the crops, harvested in 1947. The prices of these crops will be considered at each annual February review and subsequently fixed by the Government.
It is recognised that in the event of an important change in the situation such as might arise from a sudden and substantial change in costs it may be necessary to conduct a special review. The economic and financial data to be provided for the purposes of either an annual, or a special, review will include an appreciation of the economic and financial effects of any such substantial change in costs. There will be no automatic adjustment of prices; all relevant data will be taken into account and—except that no downward adjustment will of course be made in the guaranteed minimum prices for milk, cattle and sheep—the prices of all the above products will be subject to adjustment upwards or downwards. Account will also be taken, in fixing these prices, of any changes that may be required during the four year period in the character of the agricultural output. It must be contemplated that, concurrently with a relaxation of pressure—when this becomes possible—for the maximum production of certain crops, e.g. cereals and potatoes, prices of those crops will be reduced.
In the event of any modifications being considered necessary, to meet the changing circumstances of the transition period, in the present methods and marketing machinery by which these assurances are implemented, discussions with representatives of the farmers and of the trades concerned will take place. Separate consideration will be given to the case of fruit, vegetables, early potatoes, wool, flax and hops.
The Government have also decided that there will be no change in the acreage payments or the general level of prices for the principal crops from the 1945 harvest, namely cereals, potatoes and sugar beet. This decision does not preclude minor adjustments in seasonal, area and grade prices which may be considered desirable after discussion with producers' representatives. Details of the prices for individual commodities will be given in separate announcements.

Mr. Barnes: With reference to the very important statement which the Minister has just made, I feel that the new procedure will be generally welcomed in the House and by all parties interested in the stability of British agriculture. However, I think the Minister will appreciate that the statement is of such importance, and so far reaching, that hon. Members would desire to read it carefully before making definite observations. I would like to express appreciation of the new procedure which seeks, for the first time, to ascertain facts upon which we can apply a price regulation, and I would like to ask the Minister whether, in addition to consulting the National Farmers' Union and the workers' unions, he would take steps for consumer consultation on the basis of this procedure?

Sir Joseph Lamb: While thanking the Minister for his statement, and while I know that the industry will appreciate it as a concrete statement, may I ask if he will continue the discussion with the industry with regard to a long-term policy? This, of course, is a four-year programme. I would ask him to continue the discussions with the industry, particularly in relationship to other industries in this country and the Hot Springs Resolutions.

Earl Winterton: May I support my hon. Friend in asking that question? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it plain that this is only an interim policy.


Will he also be a little careful about the point put by the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) because there is an understanding between agriculture and the Government not to bring in all other interests in the country?

Mr. Price: In view of the importance of the statistics and costings, on which the prices are to be based, may I ask the Minister whether the agricultural research stations, universities and economic departments will be asked to furnish figures, together with the Farmers' Union?

Mr. W. J. Brown: The Minister has made a very important statement and many of us feel that we would like to consider it further. There were six Amendments on the Paper dealing with the subject of agriculture and I understand, Mr. Speaker, that, at your discretion, you decided not to call them. I do not quarrel about that—I do not envy anybody the job of deciding what Amendments should be called—but if we are not to have a Debate on the King's Speech, would the Minister indicate how we are likely to get an opportunity of discussing agriculture at an early date, including the very important announcement made to-day?

Mr. Boothby: I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the desirability of framing a comprehensive cereal policy dealing with wheat, barley and oats, and thus keep a balanced relationship and not to make sharp differentiations between them in price.

Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask the Minister whether it is his intention to publish any of the accounts to which he referred as a basis of the figures, and whether these accounts, received from the various branches of the Farmers' Union, were current accounts, or referred to bad years before the war?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Minister said in his statement that special consideration would be given to fruit and vegetables, in other words, horticulture. Do I understand that the statement refers only to agriculture and does not include horticulture?

Mr. Turton: As it is clear that we cannot discuss this important matter by way of question and answer, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether we shall have an opportunity before Christmas of

discussing the important statement which has been made by the Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Clement Davies: It is obvious we cannot deal with the many topics involved by way of question and answer, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would desire a Debate. If it is not possible to have another day, could not the House sit on Monday so that agriculture could be debated properly?

Mr. Hudson: I would venture to remind hon. Members, including those who put questions to me, of the great difficulties we were in last year——

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I ask whether we cannot have an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister to the questions which have been put to him? How can we discuss a matter of this kind by question and answer? We are entitled to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give an extra day for agriculture. The questions had been put when the Minister rose. Cannot we have an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister?

Mr. Hudson: A number of Members put questions to me on the statement——

Earl Winterton: But we want a Debate. Several of my hon. Friends have asked a perfectly reasonable question whether we can have a Debate. May I ask you, Sir, whether we shall have an opportunity of putting that question afterwards to the Lord President of the Council?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, the noble Lord can put the question.

Mr. Hudson: I am at liberty to answer questions that were put me on my statement. Hon. Members will remember the grave difficulties we were in last year over the question of price fixing because there was no agreed basis. The farmers' organisations put forward certain accounts, we put forward others, and there was no accepted basis. We spent 11 months negotiating with all sides of the industry to try and get some agreed method of collecting statistics. These statistics will be collected by impartial persons, that is, by the advisory economists attached to universities and colleges. In the Bill which I brought forward, and which the House was good enough to pass recently, setting up a national advisory service, I specifically excluded these men from the national


service in order that there should be no question that they were absolutely impartial and were appointed and employed by the universities and colleges. These are the men who will be responsible for collecting the data on a large scale. The provincial centres will be at liberty to publish their data, and the collected data will also be published. This is purely a procedural matter and is the first big step towards providing a means of getting an agreed policy. I want to preserve the distinction between this, which is pure machinery, and the question of policy. You cannot settle policy until you have machinery, and this is the first step towards getting permanent machinery going.

Mr. Granville: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that on Friday there are to be Debates on Burma and rural housing, and in view of the interest there is in agriculture, may I ask, Sir, whether you will reconsider the allocation of subjects to be debated on Friday?

Mr. Speaker: It must be recognised that other hon. Members attach great importance to Burma and rural housing.

Mr. Loftus: Everything will depend, I take it, on costs of production as certified by these experts. Will those costs be purely financial costs, or will they take into account the maintenance of the fertility of the soil, which may multiply the purely financial aspect?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he recognises the importance of this issue in relation to housewives with their shopping baskets, to the value of the £ in the workers' pay packets, to the question of subsidies, and to everything that is connected with the post-war dietary of the nation and the prices that workers will have to pay? Whether we disagree with the proposals or not, they ought to be debated, and I would like to ask whether we can have an opportunity for a discussion?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is really very unusual, when a Minister is waiting to answer specific questions, to have a sudden demand for a statement on Business. If the noble Lord had waited a moment I should have been prepared to get up, but he has no precedence over other hon. Members in putting

questions. The Amendments to the Address to be called are a matter for the Speaker. It is obvious that there are claims for other Debates, and a claim for a Debate on agriculture should be put through the usual channels and addressed to the Leader of the House in order that it can be considered before the Christmas Adjournment with other subjects which other Members may consider of importance.

Earl Winterton: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's rebuke, and may I ask whether he is aware that the whole agricultural interest has been demanding a Debate for months past? He must have regard to that. Although a few hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies apparently do not want a Debate, the great majority of them do, and other hon. Members as well. The right hon. Gentleman must have regard to the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Attlee: Certainly, and these matters will be taken into account through the usual channels. They have not come to me personally.

Sir J. Lamb: I do not wish to appear ungrateful for the Minister's statement, but he did not answer my question. It was whether my right hon. Friend would continue discussions with the industry with regard to long-term policy?

Mr. Hudson: That does not arise out of this particular question, which is a question of machinery.

Mr. MacLaren: May I ask if the statement we have heard to-day commits the House in any way specifically to a policy without our making any decision? Is it purely machinery? If it is purely machinery, one can understand it, but if there is something more to it and the House is being committed to something in the nature of a definite policy, surely the statement should be discussed by the House.

Mr. Hudson: As I explained, it is purely machinery.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1944)

Estimates presented—of further Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1945 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 2.]

BILLS PRESENTED

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

"to continue in force the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939"; presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison, supported by Mr. T. Johnston, Miss Ellen Wilkinson and Mr. Westwood; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

WAGES COUNCILS BILL

"to provide for the establishment of wages councils, and otherwise for the regulation of the remuneration and conditions of employment of workers in certain circumstances"; presented by Mr. Ernest Bevin, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. Ernest Brown and Mr. McCorquodale; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[Fourth Day]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th November]:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Captain Sidney.]

Question again proposed.

12.55 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: Last Wednesday, the opening day of this Debate on the King's Speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), speaking for the whole of our party, made an appeal to the Government and to the House. He asked that we should dedicate this new Session of Parliament to the fulfilment of the promises which Parliament and the


Government have made to the people of this country. He particularly emphasised the desirability of giving some measure of priority to those items of legislation mentioned in the King's Speech, to which the country attach a great deal of importance and which they are rightly expecting that we should pass at the earliest possible moment. Since my right hon. Friend made this statement, supplemented as it was by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) speaking on Friday, we have had two replies upon this aspect of our Debate from the Government. We had a reply from the Prime Minister on Wednesday and a reply from the Foreign Secretary on Friday. Those replies turned round two phrases, one used in the King's Speech and the other used by the Prime Minister. The King's Speech indicates that the Government propose to proceed with legislation on the lines mentioned in the Speech "as opportunity serves." The Prime Minister qualified that by saying that the Government would proceed with legislation as opportunity serves and within the time that is left to this Parliament.
I would like to deal with these two phrases and to put some questions to my right hon. Friend who is to reply on which we would like clarification. It is because we are disturbed and disappointed at the hesitancy of the language in the King's Speech, which has been accentuated by the replies we have had, that we asked for an opportunity of returning to this aspect of this Debate before turning our attention to specific problems during the rest of the week. I would like to say a few words about the question of the time that is left to this Parliament. That time is conditioned by the impending General Election. We know, too, that the General Election in its turn waits upon the termination of the war against Germany in Europe. I notice that since last week there has been a tendency in some Conservative sections of the Press to try and create a feeling of prejudice against my party by trying to saddle on it the responsibility of trying to return quickly to party politics. I notice, for example, that the "Daily Telegraph" to-day talks about the prospects of a return to party politics, due largely to Socialist initiative.
I am a member of the party executive, and I want to make the position of our

party clear about the problem of the General Election. There need be no ambiguity about the position of our party. The trouble is that there is ambiguity about the position of other parties, but none about ours. We have made a statement about it, carefully considered and weighed, and publicly issued to the whole country on 7th October. That statement will come before our party conference next week for their approval or rejection—a perfectly proper, democratic procedure. As a party we are not afraid of any charge or accusation of seeking wickedly to return to party politics. As we understand it, the democratic system which we have in this country, which has been built up after centuries of effort and struggle, depends upon parties for its real operation. If during the last few years we have suspended parties, it is because of the impelling reasons of national safety and security, and we believe that, as soon as conditions permit, it is desirable, if we are to retain our democracy, that we should return to the party system.
We have, as I say, made our position clear upon this question, and there are three things about it I would like to say, because they are brought out clearly in the statement our party has issued. There are, first, when we think the election ought to take place; secondly, what kind of election we believe it should be, having regard to the issues involved, and thirdly what the position of our party is. If I may claim the indulgence of hon. Members, I should like to read short quotations from our statement, which clearly show what our view is on all these points. First on, when it should take place, say—
The Parliament elected in 1935 has exceeded its normal time by four years. As soon as possible, having regard to the international situation and to the need for giving the electors, especially those who are in the fighting Services, a full and fair opportunity not only of voting, but of appreciating the issues involved, a General Election must take place.
I put it to any hon. Member belonging to any Party in the House of Commons: Do they disagree with that? Do they think this House should go on voting itself extended terms of life, and do they disagree with the view we have put forward that when it takes place it shall take place on real issues, not on artificially created ones; and in particular that there should be the fullest oppor-


tunity for the men and women who are serving in the Forces to have an opportunity of voting in this election, and of appreciating the issues involved. That is when we think the election ought to take piace—when those conditions are satisfied.
Secondly, on how is it to take place, we say: It is essential that it shall be an election which shall give a real alternative to the people of this country. We therefore reject out of hand any attempt or suggestion that there should be what the people of the country know now as a "coupon Election" when the next Election comes. Thirdly, the position of our own party is made abundantly clear in this sentence:
When it is time for the House of Commons to be renewed the Labour Party, proud of the share it has taken in winning the War and preparing for the Peace, will go before the country with a practical policy based upon the Socialist principles in which it believes and will invite the electors to return a majority pledged to support a Labour Government to implement that policy.
That is the position of the Labour Party on the question of a General Election, when it should take place, what kind of Election it ought to be, and the position of our party. By that we stand, and when the election comes we shall seek to fight in the certain belief that we do not believe the people of this country want to go back to the old Britain but want to go forward to a new Britain—of security and opportunity.
That is the future. In the meantime, what are we to do with the time that is left? How long it is, how short it is, we do not know, and I shall not speculate. The other day the Prime Minister did commit himself to an estimate. Speaking in this House on 31st October, on the Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill, he used these words—he had already given a review of the whole of the circumstances that will have to be taken into consideration in deciding the time of the Election:
It follows therefore that if events should take the course I have indicated it would seem that, roughly speaking, there is no likelihood of a General Election for from seven to nine months from now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1944; V. 404, c. 665.]
That is, seven to nine months from the end of October. For the purpose of what I want to say I will accept that as being as careful and competent an estimate as

can be made by anyone. A month has already gone, so that instead of saying seven or nine months we should say that six or eight months are left to us. What are we to do with that time? That is a subject to which I wish to devote myself and to say something for my Party?
We say it is our duty as Parliament, it is the Government's duty to Parliament and the nation, to use every available moment of time that is left to carry through as many of the measures outlined in the King's speech as can be accomplished in that time. We say we owe a solemn obligation to the people of this country not to use opportunities as they come, not "as opportunity serves"; we believe we ought to go very much further, and that is our major conflict with the words in the King's Speech and the replies of the Government. We believe we ought not to wait until opportunity serves, we believe that for this purpose we should create opportunity in order to bring about the fulfilment of this programme. If we make up our mind to do it, we can carry through a great deal of this programme. It may be said that we cannot carry through all of it. That is all the more reason why we should carry as much as we possibly can. This programme, which I know, covers a very wide field, foreshadows something like 12 or more Measures. It may be we cannot carry all of these but we can carry a lot of them, I am certain.
I am like many of my hon. Friends; this is our first Parliament, maybe our only one. We have had an example of how this great instrument, this Parliament, can work quickly when there is the will to work quickly. I have been in this House of Commons in one day's Sitting in which 40 Measures were passed, because we were agreed about it, because there was the sense of urgency, there was the war. Are we to send a message to the people of this country that we are only going to tackle business quickly when there is a war, that this instrument of Parliament cannot work quickly for peace, that it can do its job well and quickly when it is a question of war but that when it is a question of peace we dawdle and waste opportunity? We would not wait for opportunity, if this was a war programme; we would create opportunities every day. It is essential that we should send a


message to the people in this country, and wherever they are serving and fighting for us outside the country, that we shall be as urgent and as quick and determined and resolute about our peace programme, as about our war programme. If any other idea gets out to those lads in the Forces, it may be a disaster for this country.
I urge that we should make up our minds that we shall use every moment and create opportunities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood), speaking for all of us here, said we were prepared to consider and accept any changes that are required—changes in the hours of sitting, the re-establishment of Standing Committees, extension of the days of sitting. We are prepared for the next six or eight months, to work as we have done throughout the war, to carry out and implement as much of this programme as we can. In six or eight months, it may be argued, we cannot carry through this programme fully. Then let us do as we do for war, settle priorities, making up our mind what part of this programme we think ought to be carried out, and give it the first preference. Let those Bills come first.
There are three great groups of problems which our people are anxious and worried about, and for which they are looking to us to find a remedy. First, there is the question of homes. We are to discuss that later in the week. Secondly, there is the question of jobs. That is to be discussed to-morrow. Thirdly, there is this question of security from want, the abolition of fear and want. Let us be under no misunderstanding about this: The experience of the last 20 years has sunk deep into the minds and hearts of our people.
I very often contrast the mood of people in this war and in the last war. In the last war, which came as a kind of bolt from the blue, as a kind of intrusion in our life, people looked forward to the end of that war as the time when they would go back to the old days. There was a nostalgic longing to go back. The important thing about the mood of this country in this war is that people are longing for the victorious end of the war, and they are determined to go on until it has ended victoriously, but their longing

for the end of it is accompanied by apprehension about what will take place after it. That is the central feature about the minds of people. That is why these measures of social security have gripped the imagination and the minds and hearts of our people. We would say that high among the priorities which we ourselves would fix for the legislation which we ought to debate and pass into law in these next six or eight months stands this group of social measures—family allowances, the national insurance measures in their two forms, the general one and that for injury allowances, and the health services. The injured men are looking to this House.
We would put these high, and in asking the Government to devote these six or eight months to a real attempt in this House of Commons to implement this programme of national insurance, I urge upon them that it is now two years since the Report by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) was presented to the Government and the House. It is 20 months since we debated the Report in this House, and when we did so statements were made, 20 months ago, on behalf of the Government. I want to quote them. Lest it be said that I am quoting one side against the other, I propose to quote the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, both of whom took part for the Government in the Debate. The Chancellor said:
the Government will press forward with the preparation of a Bill or group of Bills, and, when this work has been completed, they will review their policy, and Parliament will have an opportunity of pronouncing on the scheme.
In the course of the Debate I and several other Members had criticised the Chancellor. I think he deserved criticism, and I think so now, because of the reservations he made. Therefore, in his reply he used these words:
No reservations that I have made will affect the speed and vigour of our preparations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1944; Vol. 386, c. 1678.]
That was 20 months ago. The Home Secretary speaking in the same Debate two days later said:
we shall arrange for a limited but special staff to be concentrated on the general work of preparation. … We cannot give a date … but we are going to lose no essential time. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1943; Vol. 386, c. 2047–8.]


I put this point. It is 20 months ago since these pledges and promises were made in this House by the Government spokesmen. In the Debate upon national insurance and social insurance my right hon. Friends promised that the preparation would be hurried forward with vigour and no essential time would be lost. We are entitled to ask the Government, Are they ready now, are these Bills ready, any of them or all of them? I want to ask this question in this way. Are we to have any or all of these Bills presented to us this Session? If so, which of them, and in what order? Can we have an idea of the Government's time-table? Can we be told how many of these Bills will be presented to the House before Christmas, and how many before Easter? In other words, is there a time-table? We urge that there should be one. We attach tremendous importance to this next six or eight months being effectively used by this House to carry out the promises that the people have accepted from us. The Government and the House of Commons have promised this legislation to the people of this country. Are we going to say, "There is no time; there is only six or eight months"? In six or eight months we can do a great deal. I put this question to my right hon. Friend, and ask him, not only for myself but for the whole of my party, to answer it. I want to be perfectly frank. The replies that we have had so far leave us completely unsatisfied. We believe that there has been a dodging of the opportunities to introduce this legislation. I would rather put it perfectly frankly like that because I know that then I shall get a frank reply. We are not satisfied with the answer that there is no time, and because of that we have raised this Debate.
This Parliament and this Government, in which we all share, have made great calls upon the people of this country—calls for great sacrifices, calls for great efforts. No call that we have made upon the people of this country—and these are greater calls than have been made in the history of this land before—has gone without a complete answer from the people. They have responded magnificently. That White Paper, published last week, is a testimony to the effort of the common people of this country. We have asked so much from them, and they have given so much in answer to our call. What are

we going to give them now? When the war in Europe comes to an end, some of our men—we hope a large number, but that is to be decided by military considerations—who are fighting our battles all over the world, will come back. When the war in Europe is over it is also very clear that a large number of the men and women now engaged in war work will be released from war factories, and will begin to take other jobs. Coming from an industrial area, I know—and my hon. Friends know it too—that there is a word growing up in the industrial areas: the word "redundancy." People are becoming redundant. In other words, they will not be wanted at their present jobs in three or four months' time. They are worried, and they are looking to us. I hope we shall get from the Government the answer that in the next six or eight months we are going to get down to the job of implementing the promises that we made to the people.
Recently an article appeared in the "Spectator." I do not know how many right hon. Members read it. It was written, anonymously of course, by an officer serving with the British Liberation Army. I hope that members of the Government and Members of the House of Commons will read it. It is a disturbing article. I do not know, but it may be that it overdraws the picture one way or the other; but the editor of the "Spectator," commenting upon it, said that what the writer said in the article was confirmed by much that he himself had heard from the war factories, and, even making allowance for the possibility of exaggeration, there was much evidence that among a very wide section of our people there existed these ideas and this mood—because, remember that what we shall have to face at the end of the war is a mood. If the spirit in which the men come back is wrong, it may be a very bad thing for this country, and a very bad thing for this Parliament. The article summed up by saying that the men whom the writer was privileged to lead, fine fellows, brave fellows, great fighters, courageous men, were distrustful of politicians. He had recently been engaged in trying to get men to register for the vote, and they said to him, "It does not matter." He said that he was appalled by the cynicism, the scepticism, and the distrust of Parliament, and of everything that we say; because of the gap between what we say


and what we do: because what we say and what we do do not correspond.
I have friends working in the Army Educational Corps, and what they say confirms the statement that these young people are afraid, distrustful, concerning what they are coming back to. They remember what happened to their fathers after the last war, and they are afraid that the same thing is going to happen to them. In the next seven or eight months we have a chance, by the way we implement this programme, to determine whether these men come back to find their distrust justified, or come back satisfied that we have not only called upon them to do things in war, but have used every opportunity to see that they come back to a Britain better than the Britain they left. For five years we have called upon the people of this country. They have kept faith with us. We must keep faith with them too.

1.23 p.m.

The Deputy-Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said. He has spoken with his usual cogency. I want to make a statement on behalf of the Government, although I think that Members should have been satisfied by the speeches made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I would like to deal specifically with the points raised by my hon. Friend. I think it is very important to remember that this is a Parliament, and that you cannot throw things through in large and complicated Measures in the way you would throw something through quickly because it is immediately necessary for the war. You have got to take some time over it. I would ask Members to be very careful not to give people the idea that these things are very easy, that it is only a kind of Government cussedness that prevents them getting along. Believe me, these questions are very complicated.
I was a little disturbed at what my hon. Friend reiterated about the length of time that the Government took to consider these schemes. That point was made also by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge), in his very interesting speech. There were one or two things which he omitted, and which I might mention now. He omitted

to say that when he made his scheme he also asked for two other schemes, for the health service and for full employment, and that those had to be worked out by the Government. They were prerequisites of his scheme. The policy there involved an immense amount of detailed work. I want to remind hon. Members again that it is one thing to be able to work day in day out on a scheme, and quite another thing to have to work on the details of a number of schemes when, at the same time, you are already very heavily burdened with other work. I do not think that that is quite realised. You can get work done for you by officials, you can get work done for you by secretaries; but, if you are a responsible Minister, it ultimately come down to you, working, and working hard, on the details.
These great Measures took up an enormous amount of the time of people who, from the departmental offices they hold and from their weight of experience and importance, were necessarily burdened by an immense amount of other work. In a Government it comes down to a comparatively small number of people who must take decisions, and they cannot take those decisions lightly. I myself have not had the heavy departmental responsibilities of some of my colleagues: I have not been perhaps so closely engaged on the detailed examination of these proposals; but even I found a pretty big addition to my other work. Also, the day-to-day work of carrying on the war is, at the same time, very heavy. There is the work of Parliament; and that is quite heavy on Ministers. If you look at the Prorogation Speech you will see that this House itself has got through a great deal of legislative work. The Government have also taken part in international conferences, again involving the consideration of very far-reaching questions, on which decisions had to be come to, which necessarily fall very largely on the same group of Ministers.
When you look at these proposals in detail, I think you will find that they are not matters, necessarily, of party controversy. Government committees and meetings of Ministers that discussed these proposals spent many long hours on them; and I can assure hon. Members that they were not taken up all the time in inter-party squabbles—far from it. Members of the same party, looking at the same proposals with their background of depart-


mental experience, will take slightly different views. That is the main problem in these schemes: the equities between various classes of citizens. They are not very easy. Hon. Members opposite know vastly more than I shall ever know about workmen's compensation. They know that that side of the thing is not simple. I ask hon. Members to believe that there never has been any obstruction of these schemes: work has gone on continuously. But it is inevitable, from the nature of these schemes and the fact that they had to be considered by people with very big responsibilities, in the middle of the war, that they should have extended over many weeks.

Mr. David Grenfell: My right hon. Friend has said that questions of equity are concerned in all these schemes. Does he not attach full importance to what my right hon. Friend has said: that those questions of equity will be emphasised, acerbated, sharpened, and deepened immensely when the men come back, disappointed with what has been done while they were away?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not understood my point. My point was that you have to assemble into one scheme a number of provisions of various kinds, relating to various categories of persons. I was referring to the equities between different classes, such as widows and so on, which have to be worked out to get a fair balance. All of us who have been in the House some time know that, when you are discussing these things, there are a great many detailed points on which hon. Members will insist, and I think we ought to be very careful to get these things right. I only put that as a preliminary point.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: My right hon. Friend has made a very interesting statement. He said that, in the discussions on all the Measures coming before the House, there was no real party issue. That seems to be a very important statement. Does it mean that it is on administrative details that difficulties are arising?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid my hon. Friend did not quote me quite correctly.

Mr. Lindsay: I have tried to.

Mr. Attlee: I am not being offensive, but my hon. Friend did not quote me quite correctly. I was referring to this particular group of proposals. I did not say that no political question ever arose. I said that a great amount of the work done did not involve party political considerations, but was taken up with administrative details. I said that a great amount of the detailed work was not a matter dividing the parties on political differences. I am sure any hon. Member with experience of these things will know what I mean.
The hon. Member for Llanelly quite reasonably put the question about what we are able to do in this Session. I think anybody who is an experienced Parliamentarian will agree that the Gracious Speech contains a very heavy legislative programme. For any peace-time period, it would be an extremely heavy programme. The Bills that are indicated there fall, broadly speaking, into three groups. First, there are the annual Bills, most of them giving an occasion for debate, though not in very much detail. Then there are a number of Bills which must be passed within a specified time. That is why you cannot afford a priority programme based entirely on the preferences of hon. Members for certain Measures. There are a number of Bills which must be passed within a certain specified time. Some of these are Bills that come forward fairly easily, but others are really quite detailed and quite important. They arise out of other legislation already passed by this House. Then, there are a number of Bills, some dozen or two dozen, perhaps, which are essential for the carrying on of the war and for dealing with matters that will arise immediately after the peace with Germany. All these have to be got on with. Then we come to the reconstruction Bills. There are a large number of these and we find that groups of hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in them, some in one and others in another. I am sure it would be a great thing if all hon. Members could feel as much interested getting through the Bills in which other hon. Members are interested as in those which are their own pets. That would be extremely helpful.
The Government were, I think, right, with so heavy a programme, to strike a note of caution. The hon. Member for Llanelly has said quite rightly that it is a dangerous thing not to fulfil promises.


It would have been wrong for the Government, having regard merely to the volume of legislation with which we have to deal, to say specifically that all these things could be passed into law this Session. We were bound to strike a note of caution. There is another factor, too, which is quite incalculable, and that is the length of the German war. As the hon. Member for Llanelly has explained, and he backed it up with quotations from an excellently-written document produced by the Labour Party, there are reasons why, in a democratic country like this, as soon as conditions allow—physical conditions, conditions of the waging of war and conditions that are going to give electors and would-be elected fair opportunities—there ought to be a General Election. I think that is common ground. No one can say when that situation will arise, but we all hope that, as soon as possible, we may bring the war against Germany to a victorious end, but it has been stated, and I think everybody agrees, that you cannot plunge into a General Election until you have finished the German war.
That is a date which we cannot fix, and that brings an element of uncertainty into the implementation of the programme outlined in the King's Speech. Therefore, we have set out quite fairly that we are going to try to do our best. Our intention is to make the greatest possible progress that we can. With regard to that other group of Bills I mentioned, the annual, essential ones, we all want to get them through or at least as far forward as we possibly can.
There are the social insurance proposals. The Prime Minister, in his speech on the Address, said they were in the forefront, but he was unable to give a complete time-table. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Llanelly will see that it is quite impossible to give an exact time-table. There are the various Bills which have to go forward at different times to be passed by certain dates and so on, but I hope that the Bill providing for family allowances will be presented very soon, and I hope that the Industrial Injury Bill will not be very long behind it. I cannot say when the other Bills will be presented, because an immense amount of work has to be done on them, but my right hon. Friend is using the utmost vigour to get these Bills forward and get the drafting completed. There, again, we

must remember that there is a very heavy strain on the quite limited number of skilled draftsmen in this country. It is rather a limiting factor and you have to consider it.

Dr. Haden Guest: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has said about draftsmanship mean that a lot of preparation is necessary to be applied to the Bill for the comprehensive medical service? The Ministry of Health has been working on it for about three years. Surely, they have arrived at some definite definition?

Mr. Attlee: These Bills have been the subject of discussions in this House, and it is really quite impossible to begin drafting a Bill before we have got a considerable way towards agreement.

Mr. Lindsay: I would really like to get this point clear, because I was very interested in the way the Government got the Education Act through. That, I think, took about 18 months in the drafting. If it is really a question of a shortage of draftsmen in the country, or in the Government offices, I think we ought to be told.

Mr. Attlee: I mentioned it as one of the factors concerned. You cannot work your officials or Ministers more than a certain amount, and we are already working very long hours. It is a fact, which everybody knows, that there is not a superabundance of skilled draftsmen in this country, and if you are to get a Bill through the House you must have it properly drafted. I have seen plenty of Bills take a very long time in this House through bad drafting. I do not think hon. Members realise the large amount of legislation which has come before the House in the last year. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) is always trying to suggest that the real difficulty is disputes and so on——

Mr. Lindsay: I was only asking the question.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, but it is the second time, and I have already said that these proposals are agreed and will come before the House, and that, therefore, the hon. Member's point does not arise. Has my hon. Friend got the point?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, I have got that point, but I notice that there is a dispute among the doctors.

Mr. Attlee: Quite. We have put forward our proposals and we are going ahead with our proposals, but there are other Measures apart from these, and hon. Members must not think that these things can be brushed aside. There are Measures dealing with our own elections, and with matters of water supply connected with housing, and there is housing itself. You cannot brush them all aside.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We do not want to.

Mr. Attlee: I thought my hon. Friend was rather suggesting that one could have an absolute priority, but perhaps I am wrong.

Mr. Griffiths: I referred to certain priorities, and I mentioned three—jobs, houses and security. I said that houses and jobs were to be discussed separately, and so I would not refer to them.

Mr. Attlee: I mistook my hon. Friend. I thought he was asking for an immediate decision by the Government on the order of priority of legislation.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes.

Mr. Attlee: I do not think we can do that, but we shall get things through just as quickly as we can. There is a limit, however, to the amount of work this House can do. I am quite in agreement with the hon. Member for Llanelly in suggesting that we should work together and adopt any method to get things along, but, having had some experience of these matters, I say that, even with the best will in the world, you will find that it takes time. Take the Education Bill, which was a very remarkable example. Contrasted with other Bills before it, it secured the co-operation of all parties to get it through, and yet, with the best will in the world, merely from the nature of the Bill, it took a considerable time in this House.
I support the plea made by my hon. Friend to all hon. Members of the House to help along the passage of these Bills, because, after all, it depends on what this House does. The Government proposes, but the House disposes. If the House continues in a mood of full co-operation, in which every hon. Member is doing his best to help these things along, we can make great progress, but if we allow political questions to be cropping up all the time and differences to grow and

grow, then we may get into a position wherein such a programme as this would be quite impossible. I entirely support the hon. Member for Llanelly in the view that, these Measures having received such a large amount of support in this House and in the country, it is up to us to try and get them through if we possibly can, but it is right that I should warn hon. Members of the physical difficulties and also warn them of the inevitable uncertainties in time of war.
The Prime Minister said that those who were pledged to these great matters of social legislation would feel themselves bound, in a General Election, to make good their promises and commitments to the people. My right hon. Friend did not say that we should not make progress with these Bills in this Session, and I entirely agree with him in his pronouncement. Whatever the Government or whatever the composition of the House, whatever programme parties put forward, I hope that there will be co-operation between all parties so that these great Measures, if not put through at the time of the General Election, can still reach the Statute Book, because they represent an immense amount of work.
It has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, there have been discussions by the Government and by officials, discussions in this House, and a wide consideration in the country, and never before has there been such a tremendous measure of support for these proposals. We do not want to suggest to the men in the Fighting Forces that in any part there will be a disposal to waive that work which is being done. Whatever happens, we shall endeavour to put this coping stone on to our provision of social services. There may be differences of detail between people, but do not let differences of detail destroy the great measure of agreement on main principles and the main framework.
I have tried to answer by hon. Friend. I have told him that there are two Measures which, we hope, will be coming along very shortly. I told him that I cannot give the exact order of priority with regard to the others. I say that with regard to all the Measures we have mentioned in the King's Speech, we shall do our very utmost to get them on to


the Statute Book. But I say, in conclusion, that we must remember that the Government is not the master but the servant of this House and, in the long run, it depends on the will of this House and what it does as to how far these proposals in the King's Speech can be fully implemented.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. T. J. Brooks: I was very interested in the statement that has been made by the Deputy Prime Minister. It reminds me of a long experience in local government work—some 30 years—and it appears, even from to-day's statement, and also from the statement of the Prime Minister a few days ago, that the time is not going to be opportune. It never has been opportune, as far as we have been concerned, in all my experience in local government life. I am very confused to-day as to what is to happen in the future and whether we are actually going to get the social insurance scheme on to the Statute Book. First, we have to wait until the defeat of Germany, and after the defeat of Germany, we shall be able to consider how long it will be before there is a General Election. Therefore, we are very confused as to what is to happen with regard to the Social Insurance Scheme.
I am glad to have an opportunity of saying one or two things about the industrial side of this scheme. I was very glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister say that the question of family allowances was going to have a very early turn in reference to social insurance and that industrial insurance would, maybe, take the second place. I am hoping that this may happen before there is a Dissolution of this Parliament and before we go to the country. The population have been thrilled by the White Paper, and this House has definitely agreed that the proposals ought to become law as soon as possible. I am glad that workmen's compensation is, by social insurance, to be taken out of the atmosphere of controversy and conflict and established on a sure and sounder foundation. As one who has had a good deal of experience in the courts with reference to compensation, I am glad to see the demise of these Compensation Acts. I understand that these Acts have proved the most expensive that have ever been passed. I have heard it

said that it has cost something like £1,000,000 a year on the legal side in order to get for our men either full or part compensation, or none at all. One is glad to see compensation taken out of the arena altogether, and that we are to get a general scheme upon which we can all agree.
In the absence of definite information that an employer shall re-employ an injured workman should there be any incapacity, can we be told whether any definite training centres will be established, or are we to be pushed into the open labour market and have to apply for unemployment benefit? That has been our lot and it is to-day, and if it is to continue so, the waste of manpower will go on, and the position is very serious in the mining and heavy industries. What has been said about treatment? Thousands are cripples to-day because of not having had expert treatment for fractures. Most hon. Members, at least on this side of the House, know that in their own towns there are scores of men who have been very badly injured and are cripples to-day because they did not have early treatment. The men may receive very good treatment in hospitals from the matrons and local doctors but often there are no experts to deal with fractures. It is high time that, in training centres, we should have experts who could put these men right in order that they may he made, if not as good industrial workers as before their injury, very good workmen again. Treatment is as important as the payments that are made to the man and his family.
Is any help to be given in reference to medical appliances, artificial legs and arms and so on? These are not supplied by the insurance companies. All they pay is the compensation, and they pay only what they are forced to pay in accordance with law. In a colliery of from 3,000 to 4,000 men cases of this sort may be happening every week. We have had to supply the appliances. The insurance company, or what is known in the coalfields as the Coalowners Indemnity Association, would do nothing at all except pay compensation and in many cases they have been forced to pay by law. The coalowners and ourselves at many collieries do agree to pay 50 per cent. each towards the purchase of these appliances. The workmen in receipt of social


insurance benefits cannot be expected to purchase them. A man who receives from £2 to £2 10s. a week cannot pay £30 or £40 for an artificial leg or arm or afford to pay for an artificial eye or truss or the 101 appliances that are required in accident cases. There are special beds required for men who have sustained broken backs, and invalid chairs are also needed, and are the Government going to make any arrangements in this connection? It may be said that these are matters of detail but we have to make them known now.
I welcome the social insurance scheme and I am glad to know that compensation is not to be related to wages. A man will know exactly what he is to have whatever his earnings may have been; the good will go with the bad, the weak with the strong. Insurance companies only insure good lives. They usually inquire about the lives of our parents and grandparents. This is a very comprehensive scheme and puts us all into the pool together. I hope that no section of the community will be able to contract out of this scheme as they were able to contract out of the last scheme. That would be a retrograde step, perhaps the beginning of the end of what is considered throughout the country to be a comprehensive, sound and vigorous step forward. Mention is made in the King's Speech of wages and conditions but it does not really give us an indication of what it actually means. I want to add a word or two in respect of agriculture in that connection. Agriculture to-day, in this country, they say, is the most highly mechanised in the world and has the best outlook and output. We have congratulated the Department on the very excellent work during the last few years. How shall we fare in this great industry when we lose the services of prisoners of war and the Women's, Land Army, and cannot rely on the thousands of people who have given up their holidays in order to go hay-making and to assist at the harvest and seed time?
How are we going to encourage men and women to come into the industry? Not by the present wage standards, surely. It is interesting to note that our farmhands are actually receiving 1s. 5d. an hour and that there is some talk about their having a penny extra an hour if they work any overtime. Here, surely, is a craftsman's job. An ordinary

labourer anywhere in the country receives 1s. 7d. an hour, and these very excellent men, who can milk, plough, thatch, sow and reap, these craftsmen, should be paid better wages than they are being paid to-day. Unless wages and conditions are improved, the men will eventually drift back into the towns and other industries and flood the labour market, as they did between the two wars, when some 250,000 of these men, who had been doing very much better work on farms, came back and did townspeople's jobs.
We should not allow this industry to languish again as it did in the years of poverty and misery after the last war. We have created a great record in this war and our output has gone up 70 per cent. and we are producing now nearly two-thirds of the total food we need in this country. It is a very fine achievement. But are we going to do it in the post-war years? What encouragement are we going to give to get these people back into farming? Do we think that the men who have been out fighting will come back and go into the farming industry at 1s. 5d. an hour. We have to encourage these people. This is a basic industry. There is a lot of talk about improvements, but unless we get the food and get the people on to the land to produce the food we shall be in a very sorry position.
Just one other word, before I close, about the Channel Islands. In "The Times" this morning there is a very strong letter and I think we will have to do something about it. Those Channel Islanders who were able to get to this country in the early part of the war appreciate what has been done for them but they express great concern to me in letters about the condition of people left in those Islands, and the points put to me in writing are well expressed in the letter in "The Times." Is everything being done that could be done regarding food and clothing and the ordinary amenities of life for these people? I appreciate, of course, that the enemy is still in possession. We all know what attack would mean, followed afterwards perhaps by what is known as the scorched earth policy. We do not want that to happen to those beautiful little Islands, but cannot we be more definitely assured here to-day that everything that is humanly possible is being done for the people left in those Islands? So many strong representations are made to me


and, I am sure to other hon. Members, that one feels rather irked that we are not able to do more. It is stated in "The Times" this morning that these people feel they have been abandoned by the Mother Country and they cannot think why. It is a terrible position. There has been no message from the B.B.C. to these people for over four years. They had great comfort in June, 1940, when His Majesty the King broadcast a message which they heard and remembered. There is no doubt at all that these people are suffering very great hardship. We have had question and answer about these things, but I ask that we should be given a little more assurance that these people, who are our own and are on our own doorstep, should have better treatment than they have had in the past. We get messages from these Islands: cannot we get something back to them to let them know that we think and care about them?

2.3 p.m.

Captain Prescott: The words "social security" have been ringing in my ears for years and therefore I think possibly it is appropriate to-day that I should, with the permission of the House, address one or two words to the House upon the matter which is now being debated upon the most Gracious Speech. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is still here, for I listened with the greatest interest to his observations. May I at the very outset say that I, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, are as keen as anybody that a scheme of social security in its entirety should be introduced and passed into law at the earliest possible moment? Indeed, I should be the happiest Member of this House if it could be introduced and passed into law before this Parliament ceases to exist.
I am very conscious of what was said by the hon. Member for Llanelly, that there is throughout the country a very grave suspicion whether we in this House, and the Government, are really serious in our intentions with regard to implementing this scheme of social security. That feeling, which I sense in my own constituency and going into the highways and byways throughout the country, causes me considerable disquiet and disturbance of mind in exactly the same way as I know it does

the hon. Member for Llanelly. If I may, however, I would with great timidity and sincerity say to my hon. Friend that I do not think it is we in this House who are to blame if that feeling be prevalent in the country. Indeed, I do not think it is the Government which is to blame if that feeling exists in the minds of many millions of men and women in this land. It is, I think, engendered partly by the political spirit which is re-awaking in this country, and by the activities of all, or some, of the political parties. I have always tried, in this House and out of it, to observe the party truce and the party spirit in the fullest form, and I am sure that no words of mine to-day will be misunderstood; but in view of the observations that have fallen from my hon. Friend I think that I should be quite frank and quite honest with the House, if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in putting my views before it with regard to this feeling in the country.
I remember not so very long ago reading a paper, not concerned with my own constituency, in which a candidate-to-be at the next election, not of my own party, made a most spirited and hearty attack on the Tory Party. He alleged that of course it was the Conservatives who were obstructing this progressive legislation, and but for the Conservative Party it would be passed into legislative effect within the next 48 hours or so. Then I read soon afterwards in the same paper that a member of another political party—also a would-be candidate for the same constituency—got up and said that he quite agreed it was the Conservative Party. Then the Member for the constituency went down and said that that was entirely untrue, that his party would most wholeheartedly support this scheme of social security, that he had advocated it in the House of Commons, and would continue to do so, and that he had many hon. and right hon. Friends on his side of the House who were of exactly the same opinion as himself. I am quite sure that the thousands of men and women who read that paper must have said to themselves, "Where does the truth lie? One politican says this, another politician says that; can we believe any of them? Let us disbelieve them all."

Mr. J. Griffiths: If I may interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, I said that it was two years since we had this report


and 20 months since the statement. I also asked, "Are we to tell the people of this country that it will really take as long as that in order to carry this thing through? Is that the speed at which Governments work?" How does my hon. and gallant Friend deal with that?

Captain Prescott: I quite appreciate that and, if I may, I will deal with it in a moment. The suggestion I am making, in the friendliest and most sincere spirit, is that the attitude which my hon. Friend senses in the country is in no small degree due to the practices which I have mentioned, and I think it is those practices which are largely creating the unhappy spirit in the minds of the people, and which we all deplore so much. I fully appreciate the point which my hon. Friend made in his intervention, that it is a considerable time since the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir William Beveridge) introduced his report, and from that date to when the Government produced their White Paper on social security. The answer I would make, and I have given prolonged and serious thought to this matter, is that this scheme of social security or social insurance or national insurance—call it what you will—is one of the most vast and far-reaching social measures which has ever come before the House of Commons.
I suggest that one cannot introduce and pass into law a measure of this nature in the same spirit or in the same time as one introduces and passes into law, for example, the Education Bill which has been mentioned to-day. A scheme of social security has very wide ramifications, for instance, the question of the medical service. There are many other questions to consider and to solve which have to be weighed in the minds of the Government. Full employment is one. I suggest seriously to the House that while I am prepared, as a back-bencher with very little authority, to bring all the pressure I can to bear on the Government in this matter—I am sure hon. Members in all quarters of the House will adopt exactly the same attitude—we must face facts, and we must realise the vastness of the measures with which we are dealing. However great our desire may be to help the men who are fighting overseas, to give them confidence in the future, to sustain their wives and families at home, nevertheless we must exercise that restraint,

that common sense as Members of this House, to which the Government is entitled. That is the submission I put before the House to-day.
I was very glad to hear the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister because, prior to hearing it, I confess quite frankly that I was not entirely happy with some of the phrases in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. It seemed to me there was a vagueness which was not entirely justifiable; but the Deputy Prime Minister to-day has explained the position and has given assurances with which, for the moment at least, we should rest satisfied; especially when one considers the observations made by the Leader of the House last week, the pledges which were given on behalf of my party, and those which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) on behalf of the party opposite. To-day, I hope very sincerely, because I think it is a matter of great importance to the peace of mind of the people of this country, that a message will go out that there really is no prevarication by the Government or by Members of Parliament, that the ordinary men and women of this country, and the men in the Services, need not distrust all politicians, that we are trying to play our part, that the Government are trying to play their part, and, at the earliest possible moment, legislative provisions will be brought before the House to implement this scheme of social security in its entirety. In the meantime, we have had an announcement with regard to family allowances and we have had an announcement with regard to a possible Industrial Injury Bill. They in themselves are matters which in peace time would have been considered of the greatest possible importance. So I do hope that there may be a change of attitude possibly in certain quarters of the Press with regard to this question of social security which I fully admit, with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, is one of the three prime factors in the future of this country and the welfare and betterment of all its inhabitants.
I would end with one point which is very near to my heart. It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that with the best will in the world some considerable time must elapse before this scheme of social security can become effective.


There is one section of the community who are not receiving at the moment all to which they are entitled, and for whom I make a plea to-day. One can gain Parliamentary fame in this House by talking on foreign policy and so on, but I very much doubt if one would gain Parliamentary fame by talking on behalf of the old age pensioners. Nevertheless, they are a very worthy section of our community for which I confess I feel very strongly. I think sometimes that hon. Members who represent constituencies in the South of England, or rural agricultural constituencies, do not come into contact with the old people and their present circumstances to the same degree as hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North, or constituencies of an industrial character. In the ten years before the war, especially in Lancashire, the old people really had a very bad time. I quite admit that in view of the comparatively recent amelioration which the Government has effected in old age pensions, those people are not now actually starving or actually in need of food or shelter over their heads.
But they are cut very near to the bone, and they have very little comfort to give them solace in their old age. I therefore make this plea to the Government and to the House. It must, of necessity, be a considerable time before the full scheme of social security will become effective. Is it not, therefore, possible to do something further to benefit the lot of the aged in this country? They are not at the moment having a very happy time. Their age, the war, and other things, have combined to prevent them living a particularly happy life—other Members must have had the same experience—and something more should be done to give them that comfort to which they are entitled.
I know full well that millions of aged people in Europe are to-day without a home and have been subjected to the greatest possible brutalities by the enemy, and that when one is in the middle of a war like this it is hardly becoming to ask for further consideration for old people who have food, clothing and shelter. Nevertheless, I would say that although I do not regard pounds, shillings and pence as meaningless symbols we can afford to do something here and now for our old people. I will end by saying

how glad I was that the Government's provisions in the White Paper were more beneficial to present old age pensioners than those contained in the Beveridge Report. I hope the points I have put will receive consideration, and that, above all, it will go forth from the House to-day that there is no prevarication by the Government with regard to this scheme of social security and that notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member for Llanelly people in this country need not distrust all politicians.

Mr. Collindridge: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) in what he has said, although I must say that many of us will applaud the tone and temper of his remarks if we do not agree with all he has said. I do not feel that on this question of the introduction of practical proposals of social security any unusually great amount of time is necessary. All I would say is that the man in the street and the man in the Forces feel that what we have done during this war is evidence of what can be done in the post-war period to bring about the necessary legislation. Besides social security, we are also discussing to-day, in effect, what success we shall have as a nation in the post-war period. Justice for the community is of major importance as a contribution to that success, and I want to speak for the moment as one who represents almost entirely a mining constituency. If we are to be successful in post-war years we must have a plentiful supply of coal. Bound up with these national insurance proposals is workmen's compensation, and I would like to assure the House that in mining districts the lack of social security, via workmen's compensation, has been one of the prime factors as to why there has been a shortage of new entrants into the mining industry.
On the average, every four years a miner is injured while he is doing his job, and if he is not then someone else has a double dose. Let us picture if we have mental vision a procession of the men who were injured or killed at our pits last year. If the procession was four abreast, and each rank one yard apart, it would stretch for over 25 miles. Every 16 yards there would be an ambulance in which there was a seriously injured man, and every 60 yards there would be a hearse containing the body of a dead miner.


Those who, like myself, belong to the mining industry would prefer being in a pit with all its risks rather than risking "flak" over Berlin, but, on the other hand, youths coming to manhood prefer to bomb Berlin or to go into a submarine under the sea rather than go into a pit. What a commentary on mining conditions. In 1922 there were, in the pits of Britain, 56,600 boys between 14 and 16. In 1938, that number had fallen to 28,000 and now, despite all the Minister of Labour is doing under his Bevin scheme—and he is doing the best he can under the circumstances—that figure of 28,000 has dropped to 18,000. There is a reason, and part of it is lack of security and the giving of decent conditions to people in that industry. I make no apology for referring to the matter in this Debate, because unless we are assured of a plentiful supply of coal after the war other industries, which are dependent upon coal, will be seriously handicapped.
I have been carried out of mines on a stretcher and have been injured often, and when I have recovered I—and others, too—have always had the thought, "How soon might come the accident which will again put me on half the wages I had while I was working as a fit and sound man?" This 50 per cent. reduction in living standard when one is injured is a factor in workmen's compensation which is deterring not merely our lads but their parents from allowing them to work at the pits. We have not associated with our workman's compensation any rehabilitation scheme in law, and there has been no compulsory medical aid to enable the injured man to make the quickest possible recovery. There has been no guarantee of future employment, particularly if the man has been still partially incapacitated when it has been stated that he has recovered and fit for some work. If a miner has nystagmus, and recovers, there is no compulsion on the coalowner to take him back into employment. By leaving workmen's compensation in private hands with the profit motive, men have been thrown out to seek employment elsewhere because there has been the danger of the recurrence of this disease if they went back to their old work. Further, there has been discrimination when it has been known that a man has received workmen's compensation for industrial diseases. I have been on the road out

of work, and when I have been lucky enough to find work I have been asked whether I have received workmen's compensation. If truth is told and if one had the misfortune to have suffered an injury or disease which might recur then there was no possibility of getting a job.
We complain of the vested interests which are associated with workmen's compensation. It is gruesome in all conscience. It was bad enough that the national need for coal should be exploited by private owners, but the fact that traffic in blood is looked upon as profit-making is particularly bad. It is because I am so proud of Britain that I feel that if other countries can adopt schemes which are giving better results we should lose no prestige in saying that we should consider the adoption of similar schemes. I was a few months ago privileged to go to the coalfields of Western Canada, where I worked 30 years ago as a miner, and there I found that the Alberta Legislature had passed a Workmen's Compensation Act which gives better conditions than those set out in our White Paper. This has had a settling effect on the workers and youths proposing to go into the coalfields there. This Albertan Act, passed last year, defines more broadly than we propose to do what constitutes an accident.
They also give definitions of those who are entitled to benefit, which are very good. The definition of a child includes an illegitimate child and any child of a husband or wife by a former marriage. The definition of compensation includes medical aid, and medical aid includes nursing, drugs, dressings, X-ray treatment, surgical appliances, special treatment and transportation to where these things can be acquired. Three Commissioners, subject to the Legislative Assembly, decide what the payment shall be, based upon certain general principles in the Act, and the resultant effect is that whereas to-day, in our Britain, of the premiums that go to the insurance bodies, about a third is spent in administration, under the Albertan Act 98 per cent. of the premiums go where it is intended that they should go, to the injured man or his dependants. For fatal claims they have abolished the lump sum idea. The widow of a miner who is killed receives £28 for burial expenses—I have translated the dollars into pounds—and she receives for pre-burial expenses, presumably garments


and the like, another £22. I contrast that with £15 all told in this country, and then only in cases where the family of a dead son receives no compensation. The widow in Canada receives a weekly payment of £2 5s., and each child receives 13s. 6d. a week, not until he starts in active employment, but until he is 18 years of age. Orphan children receive £1 2s. 6d. a week and an invalid child receives 13s. 6d. as long as invalidity continues, irrespective of age. It is true that these payments to widows cease on re-marriage, but a marriage portion of 480 dollars or £106 is paid. In fatal accidents two-thirds of the former wages represents largely the accepted amount paid to the injured workman.
At Barnsley at one period we had three major explosions within 18 months. I saw men who were lucky enough not to be in the mine at the time dashing to the pits to help their comrades in distress. This Albertan Act gives a decent measure of justice to these men who are prepared to do that. It lays down that any helper in an explosion or similar accident receives not two-thirds of his wages if he is injured in rescue work but 100 per cent. There is one important thing about this Measure I speak of which I do not notice in our proposals. We leave unpaid for a month after the accident the first three days of compensation. In the Albertan Act the first three days are given after 14 days. Rehabilitation and the re-training of disabled men are compulsory. Our proposals in the White Paper are a splendid improvement on what we do at present, but I still feel that if we are going to make these hazardous occupations attractive and if we are going to get the entrants that we need we have to make these improvements better still. The first consideration is the injured man and his family but to the districts concerned there is a liability which is not entirely shared by non-industrial districts. A few years ago the compensation of 24s. a week which was the average payment, threw injured workmen after the first week of injury on to the local rates and the trades-men were affected on the one hand by the lower purchasing power of the injured and in the second by the increase of the rates. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this Albertan Act with a view to following out some of the lines of policy

which they have laid down and which were so well received by those concerned.

2.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not pursue him into the realms of Albertan legislation. The chief discussion here is with our own legislation and we have little enough time for that without venturing into that of Alberta. It has been rather interesting to observe the issue which has really arisen as between the two sides of the House to-day. It has become manifest that Members of all parties are advocating the introduction and the passage through the House of a National Insurance Bill and the only difference between hon. Members opposite and us is that hon. Members opposite are complaining that it is not being done with enough speed. We see there being already defined the election issues and what is in fact happening is that hon. Members opposite are saying, knowing of course that they cannot improve on the legislation that we propose, that they propose the same legislation but propose it quicker. They either believe that or they do not. If they do not it is dishonest to go about the country saying so. If they do it is evident that they lack what we have always said that they lack, the experience of Government, which is necessary before you can govern.
The truth is that the delay is due to the fact that we are working within the four walls of a democracy. It is all very well for them to stump the country saying you can put this into force in a few weeks, but that just is not true. I have no doubt that you could do it in a few days if you lived under a dictatorship, but you cannot do it under a democracy because there are a number of interests to be consulted and you can only do it by trampling on those interests and completely disregarding them. If you concern yourself with the interests of the great majority of the people it is bound to take time before Measures of this kind can pass on to the Statute Book. The Education Bill is not a clear parallel as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) suggested, because there you have easily recognisable and identifiable interests which can be consulted through well recognised channels. That is not


so when you are dealing with the totality of the vast Measures proposed in this programme of social reform.

Mr. Riley: I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that both sides of the House were agreed as to the desirability of these social insurance Measures and that it is only a question of time, but if both sides are agreed, what is the difficulty?

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: That is exactly the question that I was proposing to hon. Members opposite. It is a difficulty that they have to face up to. It is idle for them to say, "We are going to break up the Coalition as soon as possible," and at the same time say they must have this Bill. The difficulty will inevitably arise that, if they break the Coalition, they cannot have the Bill until after the end of this Parliament.
A vast number of people, naturally, are interested in the national health service. There are various bodies with whom the Government have to deal. I want to put forward the general proposition that no medical health service shall be put into operation which takes the control of that service away from the profession that is mainly concerned. I think it would be deplorable if the medical profession were to be subjected in its professional duties to lay control, and I believe it is a matter which has caused considerable alarm among a large number of people. I do not want to say more about that particular matter at this stage.
I come back to one or two generalisations on the question of insurance. As I have said, it seems that we are all entirely agreed, on both sides of the House, on the general principles which we wish to see put on the Statute Book. But I wish I could see, also, some more definite information on the practical workings of these schemes because it is quite clear that we cannot create prosperity by putting an Insurance Bill on the Statute Book. Rather is the reverse the case—you cannot have social insurance without prosperity, and I am a little doubtful whether I have seen enough indication in the Gracious Speech, of any practical measures intended to arrive at a prosperous industry which is the essential foundation.
Nor have I seen what is the other essential—or, perhaps, the first essential—and that is any reference to the keeping of sufficient armed forces to maintain

peace in Europe in the future. I would like some outline of how it is proposed to deal with the question of Germany after the war. There are, broadly speaking, two schools of thought on this matter. One is what I would call the hard school and the other the soft school. Those are the two broad distinctions. What I call the misguided soft school believe that we should deal kindly with the Germans because, in that way, we may not engender bitterness which would create a further outbreak of war. I think it is essential for people to understand that the bitterness is already there. There is no question about that, and what we have to be concerned about is how we are to avoid the effects of it. Nothing we do at this stage as, indeed, nothing we were able to do between the two wars, is going to avoid the determination of the Germans to make war on us again at the earliest possible opportunity. That is their declared intention, and, as I understand it, we can only deal with that situation; we cannot avoid their having the intention. We can only deal with the matter by having a foreign policy which will prevent the outbreak at which they will undoubtedly aim in the future. It seems to me, therefore, that we must give further practical attention during the coming years to our alliance with Russia. It is essential that that should be the foundation-stone of our foreign policy, and only by maintaining that alliance, and by working in harmony and good-will with them, which I believe possible, shall we be able to retain peace in Europe in the future.
I would like to come back for a moment to the question of prosperity in this country, to which I was referring. I propose to take advantage of the opportunity of having the Minister of National Insurance here, and hope he will have his ears open to something I have to say in connection with another office which he has been good enough to discharge. That is an inquiry into the position of the coastal areas. It is a comparatively small matter in relation to the others with which we have been concerned, but, seeing the Minister here, I would like to deal with two points in that connection. First, it is proposed, although, perhaps, not generally known in this House, that in coastal areas which have been very badly hit through being defence areas, by being


banned to the general coming and going of people, which has so badly affected their trade, to advance money which will enable local authorities to pay up to £150 to start small businesses, small hotels, and so forth, going again. I hope the Minister will not think that anybody is satisfied with that amount. We shall certainly not be satisfied unless we have at least £500.
The other matter to which I want to refer is the question of light industries in these areas. There seems to be some confusion between the various Government Departments concerned, over these matters, but it certainly is clear that a distinction has been drawn between the North of England and the South of England in this respect. While considerable assistance is to be given by the Board of Trade in restarting businesses and industry in the North of England, no real attempt is to be made to assist the restarting of businesses in the South. It is said, rather negatively, that "no obstacle will be put in the way," but that is not enough. We must have more than that. We need affirmative assistance in areas which have been extremely badly hit by the war.
I do not propose to take up much more time, but I am roaming over matters in which I see injustice from time to time, and the presence of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) reminds me to say that I hope, while they are considering these matters, the Government will take some active steps about the age-barred officers in the Civil Service. They have been scandalously treated, and I feel that theirs is an injustice which can easily be put right; the mere fact that it can be done easily is not a relevant principle for remedying an injustice, although it is perhaps easier to ask for one to be remedied, which you know can be put right easily. I wanted to mention that in passing, because it is a matter which I think deserves immediate attention.
Whatever our proposals for insurance are—because only when we see a Bill shall we know with definitiveness what they are—the first and paramount realisation of the Government will be, as I have said, that no insurance will be of any use until they first direct their minds towards prosperity, and that foremost in any such plan there must be a real effort to deal with the returning ex-Servicemen. At the

moment there is no particular indication of how it is proposed to assist such people. There are general indications such as were contained in the White Paper on full employment, but that is not enough for the soldier who has been serving overseas. He wants to be told, in particular, what is being done for him, and he wants to know that he is the person ever in our minds. I hope that the Government will make it clear, as this Session proceeds, that they have something really substantial and concrete for the man who has been fighting, so that when he returns he may be quite sure that his security and his prosperity are ensured for the future.

Dr. Haden Guest: Dr. Haden Guest rose——

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. We have had a string of speakers from the Labour side and a string of speakers from the other side to-day, and I would ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether there is any method by which a selection of speakers is made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That seems to be a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Brown: I did not intend it as such. I only want to know how it is possible for one of those persons, about whom the Prime Minister spoke the other day, when he said that the Gracious Address was an opportunity for those who had no party or group, to intervene on this occasion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will have an opportunity if time permits.

2.53 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I am glad to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite about demobilisation, although I propose to speak primarilly on medical services. Before I do that I want to make a brief reference to the discussion which arose this morning in reply to the Question which I put to the Prime Minister on the subject of Greece. I only want to say that I do not propose to pursue that subject now—as, of course, under the Rules of Order, I could do—because an Amendment is being put down by myself and some other hon. Members, on which we hope to raise a discussion at a more appropriate season, and also because I think it is most important that we should not go too far away from following the


lines laid down for this Debate, especially when they deal with matters of such tremendous importance to all the people in this country.
I wish to put to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister a special point about the medical services, in view of what he said this morning. I am sorry that the question of a comprehensive medical service should come in the list—I will not call them the "also rans,"—but in point of fact the comprehensive medical service involves considerations which are very closely related to demobilisation at the end of the war. I do not want to weary the House by dealing with one profession, or its sorrows or grievances, but I do wish to point out that a very large proportion of the medical profession—an overwhelming proportion of the young members of it—are serving in the Forces of the Crown. If some are demobilised at the end of hostilities with Germany, and others a little later, are they to come back to a confused and chaotic situation, in which it is going to be very difficult for them to fit in, or are they to come back to a situation in which they can take their place in a service already constituted?
That is an enormously important point, not only for the doctors themselves, but for the whole country. It has been the practice, unfortunately, for years past for young doctors desiring to enter practice to get loans from insurance companies at fairly heavy rates of interest, the repayments of which were spaced out over a period of many years. Are they to come back to that iniquitous position, because that is the only alternative they will have to working as assistants, or working in some public capacity, unless there is a complete alteration with regard to the medical services in this country, and unless we have a comprehensive scheme. We have been reminded by the Prime Minister that this is the last Session of this Parliament. I hope that in this Session we shall lay the foundation of social security and especially of family and health security. With regard to a comprehensive medical service, may I also remind the House that the Prime Minister, himself, has expressed a very special interest in this question? In his broadcast address of March, 1943, when he talked of what was described at the time as the four-year plan on the assumption of the continuation of a Coalition Government—

which, fortunately, as I think, has came to nothing—he laid particular emphasis on the importance of a reorganised and comprehensive medical service. I hope that the Prime Minister has not gone back from that position.
We have had during the war a convincing demonstration of the value of the medical services in what they can do for health in the Army, Navy and Air Force. They have kept men fit and they have prevented infectious diseases in tropical and temperate lands. They have done something that was not attempted in the last war; they have, by special means, increased the individual fitness of men to a very high point. We have had, in addition to all that, a splendid curative and hospital service which has enabled the greater proportion of wounded as well as sick, but especially wounded at the moment, to be not only made well again but so far rehabilitated as to be able to take their places in the original units from which they had to go when they were wounded—a very remarkable medical achievement. The whole of that knowledge, which has been greatly increased in the war, knowledge of keeping fitness, of preventing sickness and improving health, is now available and has been during the war a major contribution to victory. If our men had not been kept so fit our comparatively small force would not have been able to stand the strain, and they would not have been able to do the heroic things which they have done and are continuing to do.
The medical service has been so excellent because of its singleness of purpose. It has been devoted without any question of financial consideration to the one object of improving health and keeping men at a high level of fitness. It has protected them and has maintained and increased their mental and physical powers. A comprehensive medical service for the nation in peace should have the same singleness of purpose. To attain this, the whole of our medical forces must be mobilised to serve the nation. There must be a full domiciliary service, with not only doctors visiting the homes and sitting in their consulting rooms where they can be consulted by private patients, but a full consultant service, a full service of pathological help and a full service of special services, such as X-rays, available for all without question of money


passing one way or the other. The nation in peace cannot, with the immense programme of work before us afford the waste of preventible disease and of absence of fitness through the lack of the application of medical knowledge which is abundantly present if people would only use it.
This means that the whole of the medical profession must be integrated. It must be made into a comprehensive service in which the services of men are all working together with one object. There must be health centres as well as private practitioners everywhere. There must be specialist services and the closest co-operation with the public health and maternity services. A complete domiciliary service for all will be of immense value to the ordinary citizen, who has never had it before. May I remind the House of a domestic detail which many Members will know, especially on this side of the House? In the past, and indeed, up to the present time, large numbers of wives of men who are in insurable employment, but who are not themselves insured, do not get medical treatment because they cannot afford the possibility, at the end of the illness, of having a large bill which they do not think their husbands can pay. For the same reason large numbers of children do not get treatment. It will make in millions of working-class homes an immense difference, the difference between good health and chronic bad health, if women and children can get early treatment and have no longer the thought of the financial obligation of having to pay a doctor's bill. A free domiciliary service for all people in the community would by itself be a tremendous benefit to them.
Then there is the question of hospital services. No one but a doctor who is in general practice, as I have been for a long time, or the unfortunate patient or patient's family, know how incredibly difficult it is to get many poor people into hospital. You have to spend an hour or more on the telephone making arrangements. You have to make arrangements for an ambulance, and if there is something to pay for it you have to get a special form exempting payment. Then you have to go from one hospital to another to find accommodation. This condition of things applies not only to poor people, but to people in a better

position. It is difficult to get proper treatment for them because the hospital services, which, if you add them altogether, are admirable, are not added together, and it is difficult, therefore, to get the right kind of service you want. A comprehensive hospital service, pooling the voluntary and publicly controlled and owned hospitals together, which will guarantee to every sick person who requires it a bed where he can be treated without question of payment as long as it is necessary for him to be treated, will make 100 per cent. difference in the health of a large number of people and will contribute greatly to the speed and completeness of their recovery.
I want to see another aspect of the Service work in this war carried on into the peace by the integrated hospital service. During the war an enormous amount of work has been done for the Services by the civilian hospitals. What are called in the Army the base hospitals in this country have practically all been provided by the civilian hospitals acting as an Emergency Medical Service. The same thing does not apply, of course, in the United States Army. The majority of men in our Army coming from overseas, who have been treated for sickness or wounds, have been treated in this country in Emergency Medical Service hospitals. That has meant the creation of a big organisation in which the voluntary hospitals and the publicly owned council hospitals and other hospitals have been grouped together and have all worked as one team. It has also meant the building of a great deal of additional accommodation. Many thousands of additional beds have been provided in good solid structures by the Emergency Medical Service hospitals. I want that tradition of co-operation between the voluntary and the publicly controlled and owned hospitals carried on into the peace. The co-operation has met with the greatest success in war time, and there is no reason why it should not be carried on with equally great success in peace time.
Another reason for making the change at the present time is this. We have always been short of beds for the treatment of tuberculosis. If we throw into the pool of hospital accommodation all the additional beds which have been built for the Emergency Medical Service hospitals, we can cope with that. We could add another group of hospitals which have not


come to the notice of many hon. Members, namely, the excellent hospitals which have been built in this country by the Government for the United States Forces. There are a large number of them. They are well equipped and well situated, and they will form the basis of a great and valuable addition after the war is happily over to the hospital services of this country. I hope that they will be fully used and that there will be the closest co-operation with them.
I want also to secure that the comprehensive medical service to which I have been referring is got ready so as to provide that when the young medical men come back from the war there will be an organisation into which they can move at once, without having to go through the appalling business of this private buying of practices, with mortgages held over a long term of years. It will relieve the younger generation of a heavy and crippling burden, and it will go a long way to a reform which I think is overdue in this profession, the total abolition of the buying and selling of public practices, panel practices and others. There ought to be no commercial element of that kind in the medical profession. The less commercial element there is in it the better for the people as a whole.
I see the future tasks of the medical profession to build up the health of the population to the optimum, and to release, by medical science, the creative powers of the human individual. I am not talking through my hat, or through the nape of my neck, but of what can be done if this country only has the common sense to apply to the ordinary citizen, from day to day, the medical knowledge we have had for many years, and which the present organisation or disorganisation of the medical services does not allow us to apply. We can reduce infantile mortality to a much greater extent than that to which it has already been reduced. We can reduce maternal mortality, and improve mental and physical well-being and vitality, to an extent which is not realised at the present time by the ordinary citizen. I would put it in this way: We can, in the course of the next generation, make the age of 70 a very ordinary, and what one may call a reasonable middle age, instead of old age. We have examples, even in this House, of people who are 70 and over, and who, compared with the ideas of a few years ago, are to be regarded as only

middle aged. But we can make that an average for the average citizen and individual. Some progress in that direction has already been made in the United States in another sphere.
We can extend also, if we have this service, the benefits of a comprehensive medical service, with everything it can do for the individual, to our Colonies. We have left our Colonies too long without a good medical service, and I believe we ought to make our medical service in this country interchangeable with the Colonial medical service, and have one vast Empire service, in which men will serve in tropical or temperate countries, learning and contributing by their experiences new knowledge to medical science which will be of the greatest value. That is a thing which, with our Colonial Empire, we should do—we owe a debt to the Colonial people, because up to the present medical knowledge has not been applied to them as it ought to have been applied. I hope we may also get, in this matter, co-operation with the Dominions. I do not wish to speak too long on this point, but I have emphasised it, because I believe it is of supreme importance that their health should be safeguarded and their vitality should be increased.
We ought not to let the last Session of this long Parliament pass without implementing the promises which have been made to the whole people. There are no irreconcilable differences inside the medical profession in these matters. There are no administrative problems which are insuperable. We must provide a service which is not only worthy of the people of this country, but worthy of those men in the Services who are coming back from the Forces, having done such splendid work, and who will be able to do for the nation, if the nation will give them the chance, the same great tasks of fitting them for health and vigour and full activity as they have done in the Services during the war. The Services have a great deal to teach the civilian medical practitioners in this country at the present time, and—let this be my last sentence on these matters—when we are thinking of the reform and improvement of the comprehensive medical services let us remember that those young men who we are going to emancipate and give their chance, and are only anxious to get their chance and use it, are accustomed to work


as a service, and do not want to go back to the drudgery of day-to-day commercial medicine that we have had in the old times.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Major Procter.

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. I must protest very publicly and very bluntly about the order of selection of speakers in this Debate. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not himself in Order. He cannot raise that question, which is a reflection on the Chair, as a point of Order. If he wishes to raise it, there are ways and means in our procedure, but he is not entitled to raise it in the midst of a Debate and on a point of Order.

Mr. Brown: In those circumstances I give notice that if I see a continuance of the practice in this House——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to give notice of anything in regard to this matter. There is a procedure provided, by way of a Motion on the Order Paper, and the hon. Member must take such action as he thinks fit.

Mr. Brown: In those circumstances I will place a Motion on the Order Paper.

3.18 p.m.

Major Procter: I would like to express the feeling of gratitude of the people of Lancashire, and indeed the whole of England, for national insurance. I congratulate the Government on improving the original Beveridge Report, a report which was publicised all over the world, and which came to be regarded as some new Aladdin's lamp, that would solve all the difficulties of the future. The Government proposals in one regard, I welcome very much indeed. Under the original Beveridge scheme the old age pensioners were left out in the cold. I am glad to see that the new scheme brings within its scope the existing old age pensioners.
I must point out however that this national insurance scheme is a great venture of faith. It may or it may not succeed, and little we can do in this House by way of talk can guarantee the permanence of this great and monumental work. Viewed in its proper aspect, its

success depends on the prosperity of industry through the whole land. No Act of Parliament is a substitute for goods, and without the goods, without the trade, indeed without hard work on the part of everybody in this country, the whole scheme will tumble to the ground. Therefore, I suggest that there should be greater co-ordination now between the Minister of Social Security and the other Government Departments, to open the channels of trade, and remove the hindrances which prevent our manufacturers producing the goods that will provide the wealth for the people who are to pay for national insurance.
Take the case of Lancashire. It is not generally known that, through the operation of Lend-Lease, we cannot supply customers abroad with machines that have been made in Lancashire. Lancashire produces the best textile machinery in the world, and these machines go to every part of the world. If one of these machines wants a new part, small or big, that cannot be sent overseas without permission, because of the operation of Lend-Lease. We have, through the kindness of America, imported American steel on Lend-Lease terms and therefore we cannot send steel goods to South America in order to replace, or to repair machinery made in my constituency. What will be the result if such a policy is allowed to continue? Entire cotton plants will be scrapped, and American machinery put in. That is inevitable. The loss of those markets means the loss of export trade, and the loss of money. A firm in which I am interested received an order from one of the South American countries for nearly £1,000 worth of chemical products in which was £8 worth of Lend-Lease material—a very minute quantity—but so conscientiously do the Government carry out their promises to American that that order could not be delivered until certain modifications had been made and the Lend-Lease materials cut out. Then we had another difficulty. Because of the removal of this minute quantity of Lend-Lease material, the order could not be got into South America, as it did not comply with the specification filed in the Government offices there.
These are a few of the difficulties our manufacturers meet with when they try, not to extend but to preserve, their


markets, in order that our boys will have something to come back to after the war.
Another reason why firms would like greater interdepartmental co-ordination is that there is so much delay in getting permits and licences. These bureaucratic controls strangle business. If a man wants to trade abroad, he has to see so many Departments. He is passed from one to another, and months go by before the order can be executed.

Mr. Montague: What does the hon. and gallant Member propose to do about it?

Major Procter: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will tell him. What we require is greater co-ordination between Government Departments, so that the restrictions can be eased. I am only asking for simple things. I am not asking for great alterations, I ask that these petty annoyances should be removed at the earliest possible date. This national insurance scheme can only be paid for out of the manufacture and sale of goods. To regain our foreign markets will require great effort and sacrifice.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does my hon. and gallant Friend know that 75 per cent. of the cost will be paid for by the people themselves?

Major Procter: With that aspect of the matter I now deal. The social security scheme will be paid for by the British taxpayers. We have practically eliminated the rich taxpayer, and the cost will be paid for by the working man directly by his contributions and indirectly out of his Income Tax. While the scheme is welcomed, I am sure that when the full repercussions are felt by the working man, he will not regard it as anything but compulsory saving for his old age. At the moment people regard this national insurance scheme as something to be paid for by that mythical, mystical, entity called the Government, and not by working people themselves. The success or failure of the whole structure of social services depends on industry. In the final analysis, success rests upon the working man. His bread and butter as well as security all depend upon full employment. I ask that the Government as a whole should try to remove at the earliest possible moment every obstacle to getting industry back into its

stride so that when the war is over there will be full employment.

Dr. Russell Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member is implying that the Government can print the £1 notes but cannot produce one slice of bread and butter.

Major Procter: The hon. Member is quite right; he has emphasised the point I tried to make. There are three omissions from the King's Speech, which I would like to see filled in. One is the problem of our returning men, as it applies to their housing. I have recently sent out 10,000 letters to serving men and women from my own division. From the hundreds of replies that I have received, it is plain they are anxious whether they are going to get their jobs back, and whether they are going to get a house to live in. I hope that the Government will instruct, or advise, every local authority in the non-blitzed areas that the ex-Serviceman should have priority over everybody else, so that he will be able to set up a home of his own in the town from which he has gone. Another omission from this Speech is that provision has not been made for an amelioration of the lot of the existing old-age pensioner. The Government proposal is a great advance on the original Beveridge proposal, but, through the incidence of war, the old-age pensioner who has by his grit saved money finds the purchasing power of that money reduced, as it may be further reduced by inflation.
The purchasing power of the old-age pensioner to-day is considerably less than it was pre-war. I remember when we could get four cigarettes for a penny, a pint of milk for three-halfpence, an ounce of thick twist for 3d., a pint of beer for 2½d., and a hundredweight of coal for 8d. But, when these things are purchased now by the old-age pensioner, he has to pay considerably more. There are many old men and women who are just able to eke out a precarious existence waiting for the proposals of the Government to increase their pensions. Why not do so at once?
The second omisson from the King's Speech is that of any reference to the mothers of our serving men. They are completely ignored. In the last war, the mothers of serving soldiers got a pension if anything happened to their sons, but, to-day, they do not, unless they are in need, that there are parents—who have


had to return to work—old men and women—because their sons went to the war, and lost their lives. If the State thinks they have sufficient to live on, they receive no benefit. Many a mother in Lancashire endures real hardship because there is no provision for a pension for her. True, if they are destitute, parents can get a pension, but in Lancashire there are aged mothers compelled to work who would not be so compelled if their sons had lived or if a pension had been given to those mothers. Therefore I hope that something may be done speedily for the mothers of our soldiers.
The last omission from the King's Speech which I regret is that of any reference to the position of spinsters. I know that the Minister built up a very fine case—an almost unanswerable case—when he met a deputation which I had the honour to attend, but I do not make an appeal for the spinster on actuarial grounds The spinsters' pension is an exceptional case. I regret that the spinsters' cause is not supported by all the women Members of this House. The reason is that the hon. lady Members of this House are largely feminists; they believe that men and women are equal, and if a spinster is given a pension at 55 then logically a bachelor at 55 should receive one also. However, I do not regard a woman as the physical equal of a man. In Lancashire to-day we have many spinsters who have worked in the mills, and who, at 55, are worn out. The average man of 55 is not worn out, but the average woman of 55 is. I hope that the Minister of National Insurance will think again to see if it is possible to give a pension to spinsters because of the physical inability of women of 55 to carry on with their work. This great scheme is a milestone marking the advance of our country towards the fuller life all of us desire to see. Let it be the beginning of an era in which private enterprise, the State and the citizen, working together, will remove from our people the fear for the future, a fear which causes mental anguish to men and women in the evening of their lives.

Mr. Montague: While agreeing with the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech, may I ask him how it comes about that, in the same breath, or certainly in the same speech, he talks about

social security and the policy of the Government inevitably leading to inflation? Which does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want? Which does he believe in? Is there any consistency in his remarks?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make a speech.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: By common consent, we are sticking to home affairs, whereas, last Friday, we were dealing with foreign affairs. But there seems to me to be a sort of underlying unity, and a very great similarity in principle, between the Debate that we had last Friday and the Debate we are having to-day. Since I think that that similarity is of great importance to our approach to domestic problems, as well as to our approach to foreign problems, and because I think that it derives from the view that we take of the general historical background of the period through which we are passing, I would, even at the expense of spending a minute on last Friday's Debate, say a word or two about it.
In last Friday's Debate, the broad set-up was that, from this side of the House, there was grave disquiet expressed about British foreign policy, particularly in the now liberated areas, such as Italy, France, Belgium, Greece and so on, and the broad charge was made, from this side of the House, that, by and large, in our foreign policy, we were backing those elements in Europe which belonged to the past, and we were refraining from backing those elements in Europe which were important to our future on the Continent. The reply of the Foreign Secretary to that point, was to deny that the Government were influenced, in its consideration of policy, by the political complexions of the governments with which they had to deal. The right hon. Gentleman denied that they divide them into governments of the Left or Right, and then deliberately favour governments of the Right as against governments of the Left, and he affirmed that our Government's foreign policy was based on an accurate appreciation of the facts, and of the war situation as it existed, uncoloured by any particular Governmental desire here to back forces in those other European countries in any sense hostile to what is desired by their inhabitants.
Let me say that I need no convincing that the Foreign Secretary is not a black-


hearted villain who sits up at night considering how he can torpedo the hopes of the future. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe him to be an honest man, bringing what honest judgment he can to bear upon these problems. But what I am very sure of is that he misconceives the character of the period through which Europe is passing and will continue to pass, and because of that fundamental misconception, which is duplicated in our approach to domestic politics, we are giving the wrong answer to many problems of foreign politics at the present time.
The essence of statesmanship is not only to look at facts as they are, but to project the curve of the present into the future. It is to discern to-day tendencies which will be dominant to-morrow, in order that the policies we pursue to-day may not only meet the facts of to-day, but anticipate those of to-morrow as well. I picked up for my Sunday reading last Sunday—a very respectable source—"The Sunday Times." I quote it because on the opposite side of the House it will not be objected to so much as if I quoted from a publication of the Left. I read this from "The Sunday Times" and it is worth notice:
What is Allied policy now? Britain incurs the reproach that she seeks to maintain the Conservative regime in power against the clamant protest of popular opinion. Can this win 'law and order' in operational areas, or the friendship of the people of Europe with whom we shall have to share our destiny in the years after the war? Once more, it would seem, British Foreign Policy must make a fundamental decision. It has been thus before and we may well recall a speech of Palmerston's on the source of England's power. He abandoned Canning's policy of acting as 'umpire between despotism and democracy.' We must side, he argued, with 'Britain's natural allies,' the Constitutional States.
The article went on to say:
When Bonaparte was to be dethroned, the Sovereigns of Europe called up their people to their aid; they invoked them in the sacred names of Freedom and National Independence; the cry went forth throughout Europe; and those whom subsidies had no power to buy, and conscription no force to compel, roused by the magic sound of Constitutional Rights, started spontaneously into arms. The long-suffering Nations of Europe rose up as one man, and by an effort tremendous and wide spreading like a great convulsion of nature, they hurled the conqueror from his throne. But promises made in days of distress were forgotten in the hour of triumph.

The fundamental mistake that we are making in European policy and home policy is that we utterly misconceive the character of the period through which we are passing. Our approach in both cases derives from a conception of this war which I regard as utterly unsound. It conceives of this war as being merely another international war and no more than that. It conceives of it as a national struggle in the course of which we must enlist the support of the oppressed minorities abroad and of our own working class at home, but that when that purely national war is over, then you must do your best to damp down progressive forces in Europe, and damp dawn, too, the hope that we have generated amongst our own people. I affirm that this is not merely an international war, but a continuing and developing social revolution, which will not stop short after the signing of an armistice following the defeat of Germany. It is part of the process which has been going on throughout practically the whole of this century, the development of a growing gap between the protective forces of society and the social and political envelope in which we have sought to contain them. They can no longer be contained within that envelope and as long as we seek to contain them there, they will break out, either in the form of international war, or of domestic upheaval. Unless we recognise that to be the characteristic future of this age, then our approach to foreign policy and domestic policy will be wrong.
We have had a similar approach to-day. The approach that we had to-day on the part of the Government is that while they desire that the social insurance legislation should become law, here again, as in Europe, we must face the facts. The facts are, they say, that, with the best will in the world, it would take a very long time to put these Acts upon the Statute Book, and there is really nothing that can be done about it, because that is how our Parliamentary machine works. There are two answers to that. The first is that it is we who are responsible for the fact that it is only now, on the eve of the death of the Coalition, that we come to deal with these problems at all. It is two years ago since the Beveridge Report was made. I do not quite know how many years ago it is since the Uthwatt Report was made, the Scott Report and the Barlow Report, and all the rest of the


reports which must be dealt with as a preliminary to dealing with the post-war situation. Whose responsibility is it that it is only now, in 1944, with the Coalition on the eve of its break-up that, these great issues are posed for discussion here to-day? The Government cannot escape responsibility for that and they cannot shelter behind the cry that there is now very little time before the General Election.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: They are sheltering behind it.

Mr. Brown: If they are, I am doing my best to pull the shelter away, and to demonstrate that it is the Government who are responsible for that. We have, in all human probability, only a few months before the General Election, in which to deal with these matters of legislation. The second answer is that, whenever this House is asked, in the interests of national security, to carry through legislation at a vastly accelerated rate, it has always found the means of doing it. In 1940, when we were faced with a critical situation, we passed within a few hours the most comprehensive Act of Parliament which has ever been passed through the British House of Commons. We did that because we held that the emergency was so great that we had to compress procedures, which would otherwise have lasted for years, into a matter of hours.
I want to submit that the man in the trenches feels—and he writes to me and says so, and to other Members—that when the Government can do these things in the interests of the war, they ought to be able to develop a corresponding speed in the interests of the warriors who fight for the war. It is a recognition that, when we are dealing with war issues, we can act with great rapidity, but when we are dealing with social issues at home nothing can be done to speed up the pre-war pace of Parliament. It is that recognition which accounts for the kind of bitterness which one finds expressed in a letter published in another respectable Right-wing paper, "The Spectator," only a few days ago quoted in "Cavalcade." A "Captain in the British Liberation Army"—that is how he signs his letter—reports that the soldier of the Second Army believes that we shall lose the peace and precipitate another war

in 10 or 20 years' time. The soldier of the Second army profoundly distrusts what he reads about Germany in the Press, and is convinced that the bankers, bishops and barons will ensure a peace that will make the Third Great War certain. The quotation goes on:
He distrusts all civilian authority, including the Socialists 'now they have become the Tories' bedfellows.' Many soldiers are not interested in the vote. 'A large number of men in my unit will not fill up the form for the electoral register,' he writes, because 'it won't do me any good.'
Reforms are suspect because they are too late and too grudgingly given. The soldier 'doubts whether they will ever be honourably implemented.' He thinks there must 'be a catch in' the White Paper on Social Insurance because of the previous partial rejection of Beveridge.
'He is convinced big business is making a nice thing out of the war. He has read some ugly reports of certain English firms charged in America with trading with the enemy. … He believes the financier was largely the cause of this war and is already thinking of the next war.'
Now it is not my purpose to argue whether those beliefs which I have quoted are justified or not; it is sufficient for me to say that, if any large section of the British people at home, or abroad in the Army, believe what is here attributed to them, that is a post-war political fact of the utmost political importance. If the belief be wrong it is for us to prove it so. If it be right, then it is for us to dispel it by action.
If that is the post-war mood in which the British people face the problems of the peace, then we are moving into a period of very great social danger indeed. I have before expressed in this House the opinion that the social strains and stresses that will come at the end of this war will be vastly greater than those which we experienced at the end of the last war. I have expressed the view that the British people have a genius for avoiding social breakdown which has sometimes led them to appropriate the fruits of other people's revolutions without going through them themselves. I wish to say, however, that the whole of that British genius will have to be called upon if we are not to face a very grave situation at the end of this war. That really is the significance of the Debate to-day, to my way of thinking. The significance is not whether we agree with this detail or that of the Government's White Paper, whether we want it to go a little further


or a little less, but whether we are prepared to do what we mean to do, quickly. For if this change be not done before the election comes, if there is a General Election in which the impression will further grow that social issues of this kind are the sport of party politics, and that there is no assurance that these things will ever reach the Statute Book if a majority of this kind or that is returned, then I believe that the intellectual climate, the moral climate, in the light of which we shall face post-war problems in Britain, is going to be a very grave and unhappy one indeed.
Why do not the Government take their courage in their own hands? The other day they told us they had to take away the rights of Private Members in the interests of the prosecution of the war. May I ask this question? Has there been, at any stage in this war, a discussion in the Cabinet as to whether we could not modify Parliamentary procedure for the purpose of securing that we do not get at the end of this war the kind of public outlook which I submit we are in grave danger of getting? Has there been a single Cabinet meeting at which we have collectively considered the possibility of getting all these Bills on the Statute Book before an election takes place? Have we no more to say about the problem of the pace of legislation than has been said up to now? Members of the House know what are the facts. The facts are that under our old orthodox procedure we cannot hope to get through this House more than about a couple of major measures in the course of the year. One hundred years ago that pace might have been all right, but we are now facing a period when what we may have to deal with is not two major measures a year but 20. Let the House consider what we are committed to already: The National Insurance Bill, Workmen's Compensation, Social Insurance, the outcome of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, and of Bretton Woods, Civil Aviation—problem after problem piling up in the form of White Paper, or international discussion which, sooner or later, has to be brought to the point of a Bill. There are dozens of them, yet under our orthodox procedure we can only deal with about two major measures per annum.
When the Home Secretary draws attention to this, and asks that Parliament, in order to expedite the pace of things,

should confine itself to broad issues and let the details be worked out by civil servants or somebody else, there is an immediate outcry against "delegated legislation," and an outcry that we are handing over our destinies to civil servants to dispose of. I notice, however, that those who cry out against "delegated legislation" never lift a finger in this House, and never raise a voice in this House, to urge that the procedure of Parliament should be speeded up in some other way. I notice that, while they attack the Home Secretary on that issue, nobody comes to his help with suggestions for speeding up the pace of Parliament in a way that would free us from the charge that we are having increased delegated legislation.
I take a grave view of this, because I have seen the consequences of social breakdown in Russia, where I spent some months in 1927. However much I admire some of the things that they have done in Russia since, I hope very much that we shall not have to face social breakdown in Britain. That is too big a price for me to want to pay, even for very considerable ultimate social improvements. In my opinion, the social strains and stresses generated by this war, when the actual international aspect of the war comes to an end, will precipitate in every country in Europe a sharp conflict between those who think that society was made for man, and those who think that man was made for society. I think that the prospects of coming peacefully through that period of immense strain and stress, will depend, more than on anything else, on the belief or disbelief of the mass of the men in the army and the mass of the civilian population, in the honesty of the intentions of this House of Commons in dealing with social issues. Do not let either side of the House think that the country is behind it. Do not let the Labour Party think that the country has an unrestrained confidence in them, and none in the Tories; do not let the Tories think that the country has confidence in them, and none in the Labour Party. The truth is that the ordinary man is watching both parties and the whole Parliamentary set-up, with a great deal of suspicion and distrust.
My last word is this, that if the Government want to preserve a belief in Parliamentary democracy, if they want to


minimise the social strains and stresses that we have to come through when this war ends, they will subordinate every calculation of electoral expediency, and so will this side of the House, to what I regard as the imperative necessity of getting these Bills on the Statute Book before, and not after, a General Election comes.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would have liked to have followed my hon. and eloquent friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) in the interesting discussion that he has started but, by the general consent of the House, Sir, and under your direction, we have now an opportunity, for a short time, of discussing something which Members from fishing constituencies greatly desire to discuss, namely, the attitude that we, the country, and the Government ought to adopt to the needs and place of the fishing industry in the days to come. I hope none of us is in any doubt as to the importance of this industry, either in size or in relative value to the nation. We are dealing here not with any secondary, or second-rate, or hole-in-the-corner trade. I am speaking to-day, as my hon. Friends will be speaking after me, for an industry whose products in volume, in money value and in nutritional benefit are of the first concern to the nation; and whose capital equipment in boats, in gear, in harbours and in long experience are, in my view, of primary value in the defence of an island State like ours; whose man-power is second to none, I claim, in those virtues of courage, hardihood, and vigorous independent enterprise, without which I, personally, see no hope of recovery for this nation after the war.
There is no time to give many statistics, but let me recall to the House a few outstanding facts. Landings of fish before the war were worth no less than £15,000,000 a year. The value of boats and gear was then estimated, conservatively, at £10,000,000. I myself estimate that at least 500,000 people were directly or indirectly interested in the prosperity of the industry; and I do not think anyone has yet estimated how many towns and villages, scattered along our hundreds of miles of coast line and which are the very expression of dauntless British character, are almost entirely dependent on the suc-

cess of this trade. But for the silent pride of these people we should perhaps have heard a great deal more in this House about their sufferings in the years between the two wars. My hon. Friends and I who come from the coastal regions of Scotland are not unmindful of the contributions of other great industries in the country; we stand in admiration of what these other trades have done in the war years, and I hope we shall continue to maintain a right proportion in these matters. But when we observe the great and costly efforts now being made to improve the lot of miners, farmers, dockers and others we are determined to stake a claim for the men and women whom we represent, and who we believe have as great a contribution to make, in their own way, to the life of the State.
I am not sure the country—and I doubt very much whether this House—realises the extent of the sacrifice which the fishing industry has made in this war. Let me give a fact or two from that part of the country I represent. At Anstruther, in Fife, no less than 90 per cent. of the fishermen are serving in some part of the war machine. They are to be found in every part of the world, in the Merchant Service, the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. There are none left in that port now except the old, the infirm and the maimed. Every boat in that harbour, except three, has gone, either requisitioned or sold or damaged or lost by enemy action. The quays that used to present so picturesque an appearance, that used to be so lively and active, are now practically deserted. The same might be said of the other Fife ports, and no doubt my hon. Friends would produce similar pictures of their areas.
The overseas markets of the fishing industry have been almost completely destroyed by this war, so much so that one is in serious doubt as to whether they can ever be recaptured again. The herring trade looked to oversea markets for much more than half of its total output and no man can predict to-day when these markets will or can be restored. The multifarious gear that fishermen use, nets, ropes and so on, are now either unprocurable or can be procured only at uneconomic prices. Many harbours have suffered damage in the war, and have not obtained the slightest repair. These are the hostages that this industry has given to the war, and


I doubt whether, perhaps with the single exception of the shipping trade, any other industry in the country has made such great sacrifices in the nation's interest.
If ever there was a case for national gratitude and for reward for service well done, it seems to me to be here, and the point of this Debate, is to ask what it is that we in this House can do, what steps can be taken, to make that reward in a fitting fashion? The fishermen ask for no charity or any grandmotherly direction from Whitehall or anywhere else. That is not what is wanted. All that they ask—and I think they are entitled to ask—is that Parliament shall provide for them the social and economic conditions within which they themselves can forge prosperity in days to come. That has been the chief function of this House in the past, and will be its inescapable function in the days to come.
I acknowledge at once that some advance has already been made, certainly in the branch of the trade concerned with the herring catch. The Herring Industry Board, which was set up recently following upon the Herring Industry Act of last Session, bids fair to put this particular section of the industry on its feet. But "bids fair," is as far as I am prepared to go at this stage. Until I see a new fleet, up-to-date, economic, efficient, and at a reasonable price, actually upon the waters around our coasts; until the research work now being carried on, and which is so important, into the various methods of processing herring—cold storage, refrigeration, canning, curing, dehydration and all the rest—is translated into a practical commercial organisation; until new markets are available both at home and abroad—and here the Ministry of Food, the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, carry a heavy responsibility; until all these steps are taken I myself do not feel that this House will have met the obligation which is resting upon us at the present time.
So much for herring. In the region of white fish we have not even reached the stage of preparations, because the Committee of Inquiry has not yet finished its deliberations. I hope its Report will not be very long delayed, because many things hang upon it. The problem of boats, for example, cannot be solved until we have clear in our minds the Government's general policy in regard to white

fish, because in many hundreds of cases the same boats will be used for herring as for white fish catching. It is manifest that the Herring Industry Board is going to be hampered in using the powers which we have given it until the Government announces its white fish policy. Speed in this matter is therefore of the greatest importance. I foresee very considerable changes in the organisation and work of the inshore white fish trade. There has been something like a revolution in the business in the last 20 or 30 years. Even so lately as 10 or 12 years ago it was common to see the fisherman's wife baiting the hooks, and spending a large part of almost every day in doing it—cold, dirty, miserable, uncomfortable, ill-paid work. To-day they are no longer ready and willing to do this. That stage has passed and we have to move, whether we like it or not, to the next stage of catching—by means of the seine net. I see a very great development in the use of the seine, but it can only be made profitable and possible if the right boats are provided, at the right price.
The right hon. Gentleman opened an exhibition in Edinburgh the other day and I should like to express my appreciation of the work that has been done there. At very short notice those responsible for the museum, supported no doubt by the Scottish Office and the Food Ministry, have produced a very attractive exhibition of the work of the fishing industry. I think something much bigger than that ought to be our aim, but there could be no more attractive exhibition. It brings public opinion to realise the immense importance of this industry, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what he has done. I, of course, am an enthusiast in this matter of fishing. I should like to see the trade restored to its past prosperity, but I am bound to face facts and to recognise that there must be some limit to expansion if only on account of changes in the world position. I see a real danger in leaving these fishing communities—because it is the communities, the villages and the towns, with which I feel the House should be principally concerned rather than the individual fishermen—with nothing but fishing to depend upon. The sooner we can introduce suitable and adequate ancillary industries of one kind or another the better shall we be serving the people concerned.
In this connection I am a little disturbed about the Government's employment policy, because I find in the White Paper that they intend creating what they call Development Areas, which I understand will in Scotland be more or less the same as the old Special Areas. It is only in these new so-called Development Areas, I understand, that private persons or local authorities are to be permitted to create new factories. Yet without the erection of new factories in these fishing villages there is not likely to be introduced any new industry. By the Government's policy they are prohibited from doing so. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider my proposition that fishing villages should be considered automatically as part of these Development Areas for getting permission to erect new factories.
May I draw attention to another point? Under the new social insurance scheme fishermen are to be regarded as in Class II, that is to say, employers and not employees. As such, they are going to be very much worse off from the point of sickness benefit and compensation for injury than they are now. It seems to me an extraordinary and paradoxical situation that this great scheme, introduced to improve the social conditions of our people, is, when applied to fishermen, actually going to worsen their present conditions. At present a fisherman who goes sick immediately gets benefit. Under the new scheme he gets no benefit until the expiry of four weeks. Some steps must be taken to deal with that strange anomaly. Under the present scheme he gets compensation for injury. Under the new plan he will get none.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to regard this great industry and its needs as of the first importance to the nation. Eleven or 12 years ago the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and I, and he long before I appeared here, pleaded with the Government and every Department of the State to have regard to its value in the national defence. I was told in reply to a question that the Admiralty had no need for fishermen nor for their boats. This war has taught us how stupid that view was. I beg the Government to assure us that never again will the British Government be so foolish.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I support what the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has so ably said. I think that fishing constituencies all round the coast have reason to be grateful to the hon. Member for raising this topic. I should like to begin my remarks by a brief quotation from one of the great books of our time, "The Social History of England," by the Master of Trinity. Dr. Trevelyan writes:
The two chief nurseries of English seamen were the 'colliers' plying between the Northern ports and London, and the fishermen of Cornwall and Devon, many of whom ventured to the foggy shores of Newfoundland for cod. No less important was the growth in Tudor times of the herring fleets of the East Coast. Camden noted the size of Yarmouth, the out-port of Norwich, now out-stripping its rival Lynn, 'for it seems incredible what a great and throng fair is here at Michaelmas and what quantities of herring and other fish are vended.' The fishermen were favourites of the Government—
I ask my right hon. Friends particularly to take note of that and to compare the record of Queen Elizabeth in this matter and their own record prior to the war—
—because they so often helped to man the mercantile and royal navies. Laws were passed ordering the observance of 'fish days': none of the Queen's subjects were to eat meat during Lent, or on Fridays—sometimes Wednesdays were added. It was expressly stated that the object was not religious but political—to maintain our seafaring population, to revive decayed coast towns, and to prevent the too great consumption of beef and mutton which resulted in the conversion of arable into pasture. These fish laws were enforced by actual penalties. In 1563 we read of a London woman being pilloried for having flesh in her tavern during Lent. … In this and every other way, Secretary Cecil strove to maintain the seafaring population and shipping of the country. He exempted seamen from military service on land; and he enforced Navigation Laws against foreign ships, particularly in the coasting trade. The English marine could not yet carry the whole of English exports, but the Navigation Laws were aiming in that direction.
This was the foundation of the Royal Navy. We can surely take a lesson from Queen Elizabeth, who presided over a great age in the history of this country, for she showed great sense in dealing with the fishing industry.
This Amendment deals with the fishing industry as a whole. Broadly, it can be divided into four sections, each of which has its own problems. There is, first, the


great deep-sea white fishing, based on Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen. Second, there is the herring fishing industry based on Lerwick, Buckie, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Stornoway and the Clyde. Third, there are the very interesting specialist fishings, such as the sprat and mullet fishing from Brixham, and the pilchard fishing from Falmouth. Finally, there is the great in-shore fishing, the line fishing, based on an infinity of small harbours round our coasts. Each one of these sections has its own separate problems, and it is impossible to deal with them all in a speech of a quarter of an hour's duration.
But there is one motto which can be applied to all sections—"First catch your fish." I would ask my right hon. Friends first of all to consider carefully the whole question of seasons, because it requires most careful investigation in the light of modern knowledge. I have observed in the past that the later the spring fishing in the herring industry began in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, the better the season was likely to be, because fewer immature fish were caught. That can be applied to the other fishings as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife mentioned the development of seine net fishing and I think that it is full of possibilities. On the other hand, I have had complaints from some of the line fishermen in my constituency, who say that if seine netting is allowed to continue without any control within the three-mile limit, it may result in putting them out of business. I am not qualified to express an opinion on this; but I am sure that this new development of seine netting inshore wants careful investigation by the Government. It may require some regulations to protect the in-shore line fishermen whom we certainly do not want to see put out of business. Then we have the vexed question of deep-sea trawlers fishing close inshore. That has gone on for at least 20 years, and it is still going on. One or two fishery cruisers are not enough to look after that problem. I agree that under war conditions it is difficult to keep a sharp look-out, but after the war there should be some more cruisers—there will be plenty of craft available for the purpose—to see that these deep-sea trawlers do not come close inshore and ruin the livelihood of the small fishermen. In this connection there is also the thorny problem of the

Moray Firth. We shall be in a pretty strong position when the war is over and I think the time will then come to say to foreign trawlers, "Keep out of the Moray Firth"; and to make a general proclamation to that effect.
I pass from fish to bases. You cannot fish without adequate bases, just as you cannot conduct naval warfare without bases. The harbours from which the white and herring fishings are conducted should be a national responsibility. They must be well found if the industry is to prosper, and supplied with adequate storage and repair facilities, electric light and power, and the most up-to-date equipment. For the smaller harbours the responsibility must rest on the local authorities. They should be given every facility and encouragement for developing these little harbours, and keeping them in good repair. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) got hold of a good idea the other day when he brought forward the question of local development funds. One of the projects of that fund at Berwick, as I understood it, was not only the improvement of the harbour but also the purchase of four of five small boats in order to supply the inhabitants with fresh fish locally caught in the morning.
On the question of boats, I believe, without being dogmatic, that the future lies with the Diesel engine so far as the fishing industry is concerned, and probably with dual-purpose craft. I want to ask my right hon. Friends whether any experiments are being carried out with regard to the type of craft which will be most suitable for fishing after the war. If there are not, there ought to be. Then we come to the question of releases of craft. It is most important that the largest possible number of craft should he released by the Admiralty at the earliest moment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife was right. So far as the fishing industry is concerned the record at the Admiralty is really a shocking one. Over and over again, before the war we pleaded with the Admiralty to make a small contribution for the upkeep of the trawler and drifter fleets, so that the boats could be kept in good order and repair. We were answered by the Admiralty to the effect that if war came the Admiralty would have no use either for the fishermen or their craft. Within a fortnight of the outbreak of war,


every serviceable craft in the fishing industry together with the men was commandeered by the Admiralty and now, of course, nobody yields to them in admiration of the fishermen for the services they have rendered in the war. Some of us can never forget the record of the Admiralty in this matter. They never lifted a finger to help the fishing industry in time of peace, but when the emergency came they rushed to it, and commandeered every man and boat they could lay hands on. We hope that will not happen again. Lastly there is the question of the men. They, as well as the boats, must be released; and unless the Government can give them some assurance of being able to earn a decent livelihood, they will not come back to fishing, and nobody can blame them.
On the question of research I must confess that, having once observed a dehydrated herring, I do not think there is a great future for dehydration in the herring industry. I do think, however, that there is a great future in the modern methods of freezing. I believe that if they are developed it will be possible to ensure a continuous supply of fresh herrings all the year round, which would obviously be an enormous advantage. There is also a great future for the canning industry. In this connection, the work that is being done at the Torry Institute at Aberdeen is of the greatest value. I think I must also say a word in defence of the much abused kipper. I am afraid that my hon Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) may not like this. There has been a good deal of nonsense talked in the past about the dyeing of kippers. I agree that kippers should be of the highest quality; but the dye that is put on to them is a pure vegetable dye. They have to be put in a brine solution in any case; and if the dye adds a little yellow, and the public like to see them a little brighter, it does not do the public any harm, and it may do the industry some good. I quite agree that they should be well smoked, and that a minimum standard of smoking might be laid down; but I do not want the impression to get around that because a kipper looks nice and bright it is somehow or other poisonous, because there is not the slightest foundation for that charge.
I turn in conclusion to markets. So far as the home market is concerned, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree

that the pooling of transport charges should be continued after the war. It is of great benefit to the industry as a whole, and there is no reason why fishermen who land their catches at ports far distant from our towns should be penalised. There is also something to be said for the encouragement and revival not only of the country van going round the villages with fresh fish, but also of the hawker, who made a good living in days gone by, and played a considerable part in the distribution of fish. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Ministry of Food, but no one can say that the distribution of fish in this war has been their brightest spot. They might consider quite seriously the problem of the distribution of fish in the rural areas of this country, by rather unorthodox means if necessary. There are many small towns and villages which have not seen a herring in the last four years, even when there was a glut of herring in the North.
We can undoubtedly increase the home consumption of herring; but that side of the trade by itself cannot restore prosperity to the industry. I would remind hon. Members that the herring is the only article of food we export from this country. The great markets were, and will be again, I hope, Russia and Northern and Central Europe. Hon. Members may not realise that before 1914 we exported every year over £1,000,000 worth of herrings to Russia alone. Poland was at that time included in Russia. It was on that export market for cured herrings that the industry as we know it to-day was built up. If we are to build up the industry after the war to anything like its old size, we must recapture that market. This brings up the whole question of international trade, which is to be considered by the House to-morrow. I shall only say this in that connection—I am afraid that not all hon. Members will agree—I do not believe that international trade, as such, is necessarily beneficial in the modern world. I do not believe we should spend the whole of our time trying to get gods out of this country, and nit trying to bring something in. I believe that, in order to be beneficial, trade must be complementary. There are things we need from Russia, timber and other things as well. I believe that, whatever my right hon. Friend may say, the Russians will want Scotch herrings again when this war is over, because


they are incomparably better, as everyone knows, than any other herrings in the world; better flavoured, and of better quality; and the Russians were once accustomed to them.
The truth is that in the modern world the uncontrolled interplay of supply and demand upon regulated markets is an impossibility; and a high degree of purposive direction of trade is essential, if chaos is to be averted. In connection with this business of securing an export trade in herrings, I believe two things to be essential. So far as the catches are concerned, we should come to an agreement with the Norwegians and the Dutch, who are our only competitors in the North Sea, in order to avoid cut-throat competition, and the production of herrings at prices which are, in the end, below the cost of production. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some assurance that tentative negotiations with the Norwegian and Dutch Governments have already begun. If we can come to an agreement with them as to the rough proportion of herrings we are each to take from the North Sea per annum, we should have taken a long step in the right direction.
The other thing to bear in mind, and I hope it will be borne firmly in mind, is that the conditions of trade vary, not only in respect of industries, but also in respect of different countries. Just as, in the case of meat, overseas producers have now organised themselves to a high degree and would welcome a corresponding organisation of our buying policy, so in the case of selling herrings to Russia, we require to centralise our sales organisation in order to deal with the purchasing organisation of the U.S.S.R. It is no use thinking we can conduct trade with Russia on an individualist competitive basis. This does not mean we have to socialise industries in this country. It simply means that every industry which wishes to do trade with Russia has to centralise its sales organisation in order to conduct trade with that particular country. Unless we do so, I do not see how we can expect to expand our Russian trade. There has to be some body, capable of speaking on behalf of the herring industry, and saying to the Russian buying organisation, "We will guarantee to supply you with so many barrels of herring per annum at a fixed price; and you can give us so much against that." On the other hand, a considerable degree of competition will be

desirable in dealing with Holland, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia and what is left of Germany. There is no reason why the sales organisation of the herring industry should not be able to conduct trade both on an organised basis, and a competitive basis. The exporters in the herring fishing industry have in fact come together and formed a company to do this; but they must receive the full backing and whole-hearted support of His Majesty's Government. They are hard bargainers in Moscow; and no sales organisation can expect to a good deal with the Soviet Government unless it has the whole authority and force of His Majesty's Government behind it.
I hope that in to-morrow's Debate the Government will be pressed for a clear definition of commercial discrimination. There would appear at present to be a sharp division of opinion between us and the United States about this, and it needs to be cleared up. They seem to think that non-discrimination means doing away with all forms of preference, all forms of long-term purchase contracts, exchange restrictions, and reciprocal trading or payments agreements. If that view were to prevail, it would be the end of us. After this war we shall only have two assets, our productive capacity and our internal market. Unless we retain the necessary powers to enable us to trade those assets, I cannot see how we can get through, unless we choose to live indefinitely on charity, which I do not think anyone in this country would wish to do.
There is this God-given gift of shoals of most wonderful herrings, swimming round our coasts year after year. They used not to do it. Suddenly, in the reign of Henry VII, they came over here from the Baltic; and, at odd intervals, we have taken advantage of them. But between 1919 and 1940 we made practically no use of them. These herrings, which are to me a form of gold mine, I wish to see utilised to the full. I wish hon. Members could have stood with me at Fraserburgh Harbour this summer and seen this marvellous harvest being landed; hundreds and thousands of crans of herrings of superb quality. My right hon. Friend did see them, and even tasted them; and I am sure he would agree with me that it was a most remarkable and encouraging spectacle. I do not want to see these fish dumped into the sea when the war is over. I believe they could be a source of great


wealth for this country. If the Government put their back behind the fishing industry after the war as they never did between the two wars, we have here a source of great prosperity and strength to this country. We want to trade these herrings for goods. Unless we do so there is no great future for the herring industry.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: The subject of this Debate is so wide that one must carefully select the items to deal with in the very short time available. As we debated the herring industry only a few months ago, and as my two hon. Friends who have lately spoken have devoted a considerable part of their speeches to herrings, I propose to deal generally with the fishing industry, and with plans for its reconstruction. The subject is so vast that I must concentrate on firing off a series of questions. I am concerned to know whether the Department is preparing now for the immediate post-war situation, the three or four years after the armistice with Germany, when Europe will be half-starved, when there will be a very great shortage of boats, when every boat will be fishing to full capacity and there will be an urgent demand for more. Also, is the Department preparing a long-term policy? Are negotiations going on now for an international convention to regulate fishing in the North Sea? What happened after the last war? In 1919–20 the North Sea was heavily stocked with fish. There were magnificent catches for a few years. Then the North Sea was over-fished; the catches went down and down, and the fish got smaller and smaller. Fifty years ago, in 1893, a Committee of this House, under the chairmanship of the then Mr. Marjoribanks, inquired into North Sea fishing, and in its report it used these words:
No doubt considerable diminution has occurred among flat fish, especially soles and plaice … the great falling-off in the size of the flat fish caught on the older grounds of the North Sea is a matter of universal observation.
Over-fishing results in inventions to increase the catch per boat and man. That reduces stocks, until finally the total catch gets smaller and smaller. It is an extraordinary thing that the total average catch from the North Sea per year between 1928 and 1932 was less than that in the years 1909 to 1913—I have the

figures. In spite of the fact that there had been a great increase in the number of steam trawlers, the size of the trawl, the methods of catching, and the efficiency of the fishing gear, the total catch in the North Sea fell between those years.
Are we after this war to have a repetition of what happened after the last war? Are we to have over-fishing—two or three good years, and then a steady decrease in the size of the catch and in the size of the fish caught in the North Sea—or are we to have international regulation? International regulation has been carried out successfully. Canada and the United States made a treaty in 1930 to regulate the halibut fishing. The result is that the average size of the fish has increased year by year, and the total amount caught in a given period by the combined fishing fleets of the United States and Canada has increased, so that on an average in five months of the year the total catch is as much as used to be caught in nine or 10 months. That means economy, leisure, and efficiency. That is a remarkable result. My first question therefore is, Are we beginning negotiations now with France, Holland, Belgium, and Norway to regulate fishing in the North Sea, as was recommended by a Committee of this House 50 years ago? Are we, at any rate, laying the foundations for this post-war period?
Now I will deal with other matters. First, I would like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said. What arrangements are being made for the return by the Admiralty of fishing boats now commandeered? One has a suspicion, probably wrong, that the Admiralty may hang on to these boats longer than is necessary, on the plea that there is a war with Japan. There will be such an urgent demand for them. Every boat will be required. Are negotiations going on now with the Admiralty to arrange for the release of some of the fishing boats? What plans have the Admiralty made for their vast post-armistice programme of mine-sweeping? These mines must be swept up. Are all the fishing vessels to be retained for mine-sweeping for a very long period after the armistice, or are some of them to be released?
I turn to another vital question. Are inquiries being made as to whether any of the Admiralty auxiliary boats which


have been built for the war are of any use for the fishing industry? I know that there will be wooden boats—I think 68 feet long—but those boats will be quite useless for fishing. In the last war they built that type of boat. They are of necessity built of unseasoned wood. Some of the fishing people bought them, and they were an appalling expense and a very great failure. Are any other types of boat now being examined by the Minister, in consultation with the Admiralty, for post-war fishing? Is any consideration being given to the examination now of all commandeered fishing vessels, to see which would be suitable for fishing immediately after the war? Some will be so worn, so battered, so out-of-date, that they will be utterly unsuitable. Is a census being taken to decide which vessels will be available, and which will be released? Is any consideration being given to the seizure of enemy fishing vessels after the war, so that we can get fishing going again as quickly as possible?
Are any arrangements being made for the preferential release after the war of young men from the Navy or Merchant Service who wish to go in for fishing? Are any inducements being offered to them? Does A.B.C.A. circulate any notices about the prospects of fishing? We want to do our utmost now, while the war is on, to interest young sailors in the fishing industry, and to attract them. To attract them we have to give them a much better deal than they had in the appalling years between 1920 and 1928. We have got to give them a minimum wage. We must give them a fair share in our plans for social security, but, in addition to that, and I call the attention of the Minister to this, we must give them opportunity. They are enterprising and courageous men, and we want to give them chances to make good and to become skippers and, later on, owners or part-owners of their vessels. We must give that chance to every young man; but here I must issue a word of warning. I hope that the policy of the Department will be to discourage big business and combines from getting hold of our fishing fleets. There are rumours to-day that one big combine is taking a very keen interest in the herring fleet, and I ask my right hon. Friend, by administration and, if necessary, by legislation, to encourage individual seamen to work up to become owners and to discourage big busi-

ness and combines reducing the fishing fleets to a kind of uniform machine, in which the individual will never have a chance of rising to become an independent owner.
Are any steps being taken now to assist in the supply of nets for use immediately after the Armistice? I understand that camouflaged netting is no longer a great priority, and that the demand has slackened. A lot of small factories have been making it. Could not they, or some of them, be switched over to begin making the nets for the fishing fleet which will be wanted immediately after the war? Has anything been done about that?
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen referred to markets overseas. We have our representatives of U.N.R.R.A. in all the liberated territories. Is there any liaison between the Department of Fisheries here and U.N.R.R.A.?

Mr. Boothby: Or the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Loftus: Yes, or the Ministry of Food. We want representatives of the Department of Fisheries going out to these countries, making the contacts with U.N.R.R.A. and examining the possibilities for supplying them, immediately after the Armistice, with cured herrings. I think there is a very great opportunity here, but the work should be commenced now and not postponed for a long time.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It has been, for a long time.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt. All the cured herrings have now been taken, a small part for consumption in this country and the remainder taken for the relief department of the Allied Expeditionary Force, or S.H.A.E.F., as it is called. All the cured herrings of this year are now going through these organisations to the liberated peoples of Europe.

Mr. Boothby: Arising out of the Minister's statement, is it not a fact that while S.H.A.E.F. has taken all these herrings, U.N.R.R.A. did not take one?

Colonel Llewellin: Let me explain the position. The initial burden for relieving the peoples of the liberated countries falls on S.H.A.E.F. U.N.R.R.A. comes along when S.H.A.E.F. hands over and it was thought better to give the herrings to the people who would consume them the more quickly.

Mr. Loftus: I must have been bad in explanation, because the Minister is talking about what is being done now, and my whole point is what is being prepared and organised now for after the war.

Mr. Hudson: It has been done.

Mr. Loftus: There is a further point. I think there are many harbours occupied by the Admiralty. Is the Department in touch with the Admiralty to see if these harbours will be available for fishing? Is there to be uniformity or will some be available before others? If so, it is only fair to the fishing industry that they should know to-day and make their plans accordingly. In making plans for the future, the Herring Board should be given powers now, and, what is more, the advisory Committee should be formed now so that it can get together and start planning for after the war. All these things should be under review by the Department. I wonder if they are. I hope we shall not find, when we begin to tackle the problem, that the foundations have not been prepared. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen referred to the neglect of former years. That must not happen again. I confirm what my hon. Friend said about the way the Admiralty treated those of us who went time after time to ask for help——

Mr. Boothby: Disgraceful.

Mr. Loftus: This industry has served the country well in two wars. It produces as fine a type of men as any trade or industry in the country. In future, we should judge all our industries not only from the financial and economic point of view, but also take into account in helping them the type and quality of men they breed, and, judged by that test, we should rely on the utmost aid from the Government. I am sure of the good will of the Minister, but, in spite of that, I ask him to see that preparations are made now and that the organisation plans are ready for dealing with the reconstruction of our great fishing industry for a big advance after the war.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I congratulate all the three hon. Members who have spoken so far on their eloquent contributions to this very important subject. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) especially

stressed a number of points which it will now be unnecessary for me to reiterate. Perhaps I may begin by referring back to a Debate which took place last July, when the Secretary of State for Scotland stated the problem before us. If I may use his words, the right hon. Gentleman said of the problem with which we are faced:
… a diminishing catch of most valuable food, ancient and outmoded boats, and gear and equipment practically gone,
Of the fleet, the right hon. Gentleman said:
It now consists, in the main, of very old boats, manned by elderly men and by boys. Nine-tenths of the steam drifters are over 23 years old, and half of them are more than 30 years old.
Referring to the numbers of drifters in use, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Steam drifters in 1913 were 1,407 in number; by 1938, they had been reduced to 685. The total catch was diminished in almost similar proportion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1172–3.]
I think that, in no industry, could there be a worse or more serious decline in such a short time as we have seen in the herring industry. It meant, in terms of boats, that, in 25 years, their numbers had been more than halved. With a similar prospect to that which they had to face after the last war, this would mean that there would be no herring fleet at all in 25 years from now, not allowing for the exceptional losses caused through naval activity of all kinds.
With regard to markets, it was said at that time, in July—and that is the present position—that the falling off of herring consumption in the home market was about 40 per cent. in those 25 years between 1913 and 1938, and that in the foreign market the demand had dropped by about 60 per cent. The Russian market, including Poland and the Baltic States, before the last war accounted for about 70 per cent. of our herring. It is impossible that we shall ever export 70 per cent. of our herring to Russia and the Baltic States again, for the simple reason that the Russians have developed their market to something over 90 times what it was at the end of the last war. I believe that if we cultivate commercial friendships with Russia we can recover a certain amount of that market; nothing like the 70 per cent.; but I still think there is great hope because of the intrinsic quality of the article itself. I


believe that in Poland and the Baltic States also we shall be able to recover a relatively greater part of the market than we shall be able to do in Russia. There are possibilities in the South American market, too, which have never been adequately exploited. There is a demand in those countries for salted fish and I do not see why herring should be excluded. With regard to the Middle East and Palestine, the Secretary of State for Scotland used to be very keen upon swapping herring for citrus fruits and things of that kind, and certainly the demand for those fruits will be great after the war, and if the demand for herring in exchange is anything like proportionate we shall be able to obtain quite a market for herring.
In this industry we have had a general picture of decay, with the threat of ultimate extinction. No industry has been so threatened with virtual extinction as the herring industry. Instead of exporting the finest herring in the world, in the immediate pre-war years we were about to start exporting the finest men in our community once again, as we did in the early and middle 20's of this century. Any solution is very much tied up with the question of guaranteed prices for the herring that the men go out to catch. You must at any rate guarantee a minimum price, and I agree too with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen—and I have said this in this House on various occasions before—that you must have a great deal of home propaganda in order to stimulate a taste for herring at home. We have a great opportunity in this war in the Armed Forces for cultivating among people of all classes of the community from all parts of the country a taste for herring and for kipper. I know from personal experience that no people in this world can make a bigger mess of the kipper or herring than Army cooks. At least that was the case in 1939 and 1940. If there was anything to put a man against herring and fish generally it was the way it was dished out in the early morning, half cooked and half cold. It became an absolute misery to the poor soldier. I do not know what happens in the Navy; but that was the feeling among the troops. We lost a special opportunity of creating a taste for this excellent commodity. We can still do a great deal in the home market to cultivate a taste for herring. Everybody knows of its nutri-

tional value and that has been brought to the attention of the public in various campaigns. The Secretary of State for Scotland has done a good deal to try and popularise it among the primary products in various competitions and exhibitions and his example might be followed by other Ministries with a great deal of benefit.
An important part of our foreign trade is going to be the long-term agreement method of dealing with Russia and these other countries. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen again was right when he said that you must have a centralised agency for dealing with the Russians. They have a centralised buying system and we must have a similar selling organisation here, while leaving the trade to some extent free to use its own methods with regard to other countries. We remember, for example, in 1938 when dealing with Germany that they, with a state buying organisation, came over to this country during the West Coast fishing season and offered a price so low that the local fishermen were unable to do anything but dump the fish. In that case it would have been beneficial if we had had a strong central selling organisation. Men will fish if they know that they can sell it at a good price. That is what we have to guarantee them. They deserve a good price and nobody seems to argue against that. Everybody thinks that they are fine fellows and that the work they are doing is extremely important, valuable and productive and nobody denies that a good price is deserved. The trouble is that no Government has in peace-time taken the trouble to guarantee continuously a price that will pay them for their trouble and labour. The herring industry's recovery is dependent upon the fishermen being guaranteed a good minimum price, and upon an efficient herring fleet of up-to-date boats based upon modern harbours. These are things which, according to the Secretary of State for Scotland's definition on 5th July last, are absolutely lacking to-day. I am debarred from discussing the white fish industry because, with the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Major Neven-Spence), who is chairman, I am serving our committee on white-fishing in Scotland. With regard to piers and harbours, I think that that is among the most acute of all the domestic prob-


lems of the herring industry. We must have good boats with gear and equipment. But, you cannot accommodate them in many smaller ports on the West Coast because of lack of adequate harbour space and suitable and substantial piers.
It is no use offering ex-Servicemen a one-third grant of a vessel costing some £2,000 to £5,000. If they were adequately assisted to own their boats it would give them an interest in the fishing and running them properly and efficiently. If you are going to do that, you will have to grant much more to the ex-Servicemen coming back with only a small gratuity than one-third of several thousand pounds with a loan charge interest rate over a long number of years. One-third will not represent an adequate grant at all when they have no prospect of making up the other two-thirds, even with the help of a loan.
I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to a number of harbours which deserve special mention, because in them you have perhaps the most enterprising and the most tenacious of the fishing communities, those who have not yet completely given up the struggle with the unequal handicaps with which they are hampered. There is for example a place Portnaguran in the Isle of Lewis where for 50 years or more they have been trying to get a suitable pier for their community of fishermen. Governments came and went and discussions were held with the various Departments concerned. Also, tentative proposals and conditional promises were given. By 1938 a pier was guaranteed with a grant of £11,500. Recently, however, when I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and certain other Departments, all that seemed to be undone once more; there was no certainty whatsoever that the grant would still be available for these fishermen. After 50 years of struggling as a community to make a livelihood there, against all the odds of lack of harbour, piers and so forth, the men are now being told in advance of being demobilised and coming back home to set up the fishing industry again, that even what was granted in 1938 is no longer certain because of the competition of various other priorities in other parts of the country and in other industries. I take it that what happened in the case of

that harbour, will also happen in the case of many others, about which the Secretary of State and other Departments have been approached; at Bayble, Back and Tolsta and in other parts of the islands of the Outer Hebrides. It is most discouraging to have to write to these fishermen, and to the families of these men who hope to come back and take advantage of loans and grants and charter arrangements for new fishing boats, and tell them that they are still where they were 50 years ago when they started asking for the minimum of the absolutely essential things on which to base a fishing industry.
May I make one appeal to the Minister on this point? It is hard enough to carry on a fishing industry without suitable harbours or piers, with outmoded and ancient boats, with a lack of modern and adequate gear, but when, along with that, you have the handicap of heavy freights, as you have in the various islands around Scotland, about which I certainly have had many representations, the fishermen and fishing communities in these areas are not being given any chance at all to compete in the open market with other communities nearer the rail and road centres. In war-time the need for the services of these fishing communities has been amply demonstrated and acknowledged. The value of maintaining these communities at full strength is obvious to everybody to-day as a result of their work in the Navy, the Merchant Navy, the Minesweeping service, and so on. In peace-time it is acknowledged that their work is productive of most important food supplies. The industry gives useful productive employment to our people in their own homes; it maintains a population which makes a big contribution in peace, as well as in war, to the prosperity of our country, and has made a big contribution in some of its finest citizens to the Dominions and British Colonies.
There is a point to which I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland especially, and that is the need for technical education in the Hebrides for the boys who are growing up there and may be attracted, that is with good conditions and on good terms and with good prospects assured, into the herring fishing industry. There is no use in sending these boys across to the mainland to be


trained, because, in the first place they cannot afford it; secondly, they are not so near to the practical work of the herring fishing, to the environment in which fishermen in the past have grown up and become useful fishermen, useful sailors, and useful members of the Merchant Navy. The best technical education these boys can get is in their own home areas amidst the fishing industry, right in the heart of it, beside the Atlantic, amongst all the lore and tradition of the fishing industry, beside their own fathers and older brothers, among their relatives and friends who are practising fishing. There is a strong demand in the Islands to-day for technical education for a school situated in the Islands where the various aspects of the fishing industry and of navigation can be taught along with agricultural subjects and the various courses when can be given in weaving, design, and so forth—the Harris tweed industry there has developed in a very big way, and needs new technical skill, too. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give his support and consideration to technical education in the Hebrides.
We have witnessed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a diminishing catch of the most valuable food owing to ancient and outmodel boats, piers and harbours. It has practically gone into decay in a very short period of 25 years, before the very eyes of the Government who, perhaps, thought they would not need again the services of the fishermen and their families in war. That is the picture of the decline and fall of a great industry. The restoration of that industry, its rebuilding and reconstruction, must at least be on as great a scale as that decline and fall. The people, I believe, are calling for a big effort now, and if the effort is not forthcoming, the final disaster will be overwhelming. This industry will not be able to survive unless the Government takes a hand.
There is one final point which is strongly felt in the Hebrides to-day—if I may revert to the technical school. I would like to stress it for the right hon. Gentleman. It is that, when he is dealing with the question of technical education, special emphasis shall be laid upon the fact that it shall not be under the omnibus school arrangement; that it shall be separate and shall also have the fullest practical relationship to the industries

themselves in part-time day continuation classes. I do not mean the four hours per week which is allowed for under the coming Scottish Education Bill, but a real practical course of instruction, the boys being engaged part of the time in fishing itself, and the rest of the time in the theoretical education which will give them a chance to become skippers and navigators and masters, all the fine opportunities which they have been denied in the past.

5.18 p.m.

Major Neven-Spence: My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), who is at present sitting with me on a committee examining white fishing problems in Scotland, has referred to the diminishing catch of herrings in Scotland and the ageing men and boats in that industry. I should like to reinforce what he has said by calling attention to the calamitous fall in the herring catch of Scotland, which has gone down from 4,750,000 cwt. in 1913 to 2,750,000 cwt. in 1938. That has mean a decline in the earnings of the men from just over £2,000,000 to just over £1,000,000. During the same period, the landings of white fish have remained at the same figure, but the value has nearly doubled, and the position of the men themselves is that whilst the herring used to be worth £2,000,000 to them it is now only worth £1,000,000, and the white fish, once worth £1,000,000, is now worth £2,000,000. This is an extremely important industry to Scotland, and I hope that everything that can possibly be done to get it on its feet again will be done.
Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) to the disposal of herring, and I hope some efforts will be made, when negotiations are entered into with Russia, to get herring placed somewhat higher on the priority list. Agricultural machinery and things like that come at the top of the list, while herring is about fortieth, after harmoniums and mouth-organs and things of that kind. The Russian Government are able to say to their people what they are to eat, and they give them the Black Sea herring, which is definitely not as good as the herring which we can supply. Therefore, I hope it will be possible to induce the Russian Government to take rather more of our herring that they have taken in the past.
The release of boats is an urgent problem; plans must be made now. The supply of boats will be difficult. Fishermen were badly bitten by the standard steam drifter after the last war. I have been to practically every fishing port on the Scottish coast, together with my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles and another member of the Committee, and at every one of them these steam drifters were condemned. They were millstones round the necks of the men, who will never touch them again. Fortunately, other types are available which promise to be economical to run and suitable for their purpose. I found great interest in what the terms will be on which men will get these new boats. The broad terms were laid down in the recent Act, but men are anxiously awaiting the final terms which will be laid down by the Herring Industry Board, and which, I hope, will be published as soon as possible. Generally speaking, the men now engaged in fishing, and who are satisfied with their own position, are anxious about what will be done to help ex-Servicemen, who have not been earning big sums of money and who will need substantial assistance to get going again after the war.
The Scottish trawling industry is in an extremely bad way and it is very unfortunate that there was no standard of profits, as they were not making any profits before the war. When they might now have been accumulating money which they so badly need it is all going in E.P.T. and in other directions, and some help will, obviously, have to be given to enable the industry to get going again. I believe that the trawling industry made representations to the Admiralty, when it was building vessels for mine-sweeping, that it should build trawlers and adapt them for mine-sweeping. But the Admiralty, quite rightly, said "No, we want mine-sweepers. If you want to adapt them afterwards for trawling, all well and good." I know that the Admiralty have recently released 12 slipways for the express purpose of building trawlers for use after the war, but I hope the industry itself will do something for its fishermen. I was disgusted, when looking at some of the older trawlers in Aberdeen, to see the conditions in which men are working. I am sorry that the benches here should be so empty on an occasion when we are talking about

labour conditions in this important industry, because we might have had some advice. I believe it is a fact that the modern 60-ft. type of boat has far better accommodation for men than any of the old trawlers of double the length.
Another vitally important point in building new trawlers is that it has been proved by research that white fish will not keep in the best conditions for more than 10 days on ice. If it is not too well handled it will probably keep only seven days. A great quantity of the fish which used to come to this country before the war was iced when caught, and might have been 20 days old when landed. So the trawling industry might give consideration to freezing the first part of their catch, so that it may be landed in good condition. The latter part of their catch could be iced in the ordinary way. Some steps will have to be taken to get priority for the release of fishermen. This is important because a large part of our food supplies comes from the sea. Attention, too, must be given to the question of the release of timber for barrel hoops and staves. Further, for some years past it has been getting more and more difficult to recruit crews of women who normally do the gutting of the herring. Boys have been taking their places in some instances. These girls have a very hard life, conditions are very uncomfortable, and I think a good deal might be done to make things easier and better for them. Superficially, this is a very dirty job, as is the baiting of lines. Wherever we went round the coast we heard that women had "packed up and would not bait any more lines." Personally, I sympathised with them. I do not think this matters very much now, because alternative ways of fishing are now available.
Another important question is whether the future of herring may not lie more with ice than with salt. Research has shown that it is possible to make as good a kipper, and, possibly, even a better one, out of a good frozen herring as a fresh one. There is the possibility of storing herring when the season is on and releasing it later for fresh food or kippering. Here I would say to the Minister of Food that the time has come when the Government ought to take very firm action in relation to dyed kippers. The dyed product we see now is doing a great deal of harm to the fishing industry, because what is commonly bought from the shop-


keeper as a kipper is not really a kipper at all; it is a herring which has been very lightly salted, severely dyed and given a whiff of smoke. A proper kipper is neither salted nor dyed; it is properly smoked. The trouble is that if you start with a cran of herring and treat them in the way they are treated at present you will get about 23 boxes of kippers. If you smoke that cran of herring properly you only get 17. That is where the incentive lies for the kipperer to put out this very inferior product. I do not think it will be got over except by stringent regulations as to how kippers are to be produced.
May I utter a word of warning? We often hear about gluts of herring in the sea, and I think people are hoping that freezing may be the answer to the problem. I doubt that very much. A glut of herring is a natural phenomenon and we have about as much hope of controlling it as of controlling an earthquake or a cyclone. When there is a glut of herring, a very large part of the catch is really spoilt for processing in any way. We hear a lot about fish having to be thrown away, but I do not think I have ever heard anyone refer to the very much worse loss that the fishermen themselves sustain when a glut takes place owing to the fact that they frequently lose their nets. The reason why we cannot deal with a glut is that we have only a limited number of crews at the particular place for curing the herrings; the curers provide crews which they think will cope with the largest catch they are likely to get. The only thing that is of any great help is rough packing, by which you can handle three times as much herring as if you were salting and curing them. But here, again, there is a catch, because you cannot treat all herring like this. It is no use treating herring in a fat or oily condition. Whatever we do, we shall always have to face the possibility of herring having to be thrown back into the sea or turned into manure.
I wish to say a word on the subject of boats. The tragedy of the Scottish inshore fishermen, the men who were originally fishers with lines and hooks, is that they have suffered from revolutionary changes in methods of catching. When trawling grew to be more and more important, the impact of that was extremely severe on the line fishermen. They switched over very largely to herring as a way out of their difficulty. That was all right for a time. Then herring fell on bad days, so

that very often communities were practically ruined through no longer being able to live by line fishing and getting into great difficulties over herring fishing. But I think there is new hope in this great development of the use of the seine net. At Lossiemouth between 1918 and 1938 landings of white fish went up from 5,000 cwt. valued at £14,000 to 125,000 cwt. valued at £127,000. That is a most startling increase, and Lossiemouth, which was ruined because of its dependence on the herring fishing, is once again the centre of a very prosperous industry, well-equipped with modern boats and gear, nearly all owned by the men themselves. If my right hon. Friend can produce a number of Lossiemouths all round the Scottish coast—I see no reason why it should not be done—I believe he will have done the greatest service to Scotland that it is possible to do, because a prosperous fishing industry is the backbone of all these boroughs and villages round the Scottish coast. It is of the utmost importance that prosperity should be brought back and I believe that seine net fishing points the way.
There is one practical point that I should like to ask about. The Herring Board has been given power to make loans and grants to fishermen. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether a man who gets help in this way will be able to use his boat for white fishing, or is he tied down to using it for herring? I do not believe we can draw a hard and fast line between herring and white fishing. The ideal set-up for the industry is to have the men provided with all-purpose boats, which can be used for herring fishing, line fishing, seine net fishing or, it may be, ring net fishing. It is a tragedy to see so many men who only fish for herring during part of the year and have to try to live for the rest of the year on their very meagre earnings or else go to sea. I do not believe it is a good plan to have men alternating between the sea and the herring industry. There is no reason why the two methods of fishing should not be run together and the man who is fishing herring from his own port during the height of the herring season use the same boat for carrying on with white fishing during the rest of the year. That is the only way these boats will be able to pay for their overheads—that they should he kept fishing every day they can fish.
There is one point that I hope my right hon. Friend will look into. I am told that the quotation for building a 50-foot boat in Scotland, the hull alone, is the same as the figure for building a complete boat in Arklow, with engine and seine net gear. If that is so, there is something very wrong. I should like to be assured that boat builders are not making a deliberate attempt to walk off with the grant that the men may get to help them to obtain these boats. There can be no excuse for this great difference in price. I should like to quote a remark made the other day by a fisherman who was asked why, in view of all the hard times he has gone through, he was still a fisherman. He said, "Need makes a naked man run." I think it is need which has kept a great many of these men in the industry, and they have hung on to it. The fisherman is a born gambler and has an ever-lasting fund of hope to draw upon. One cannot help being struck in our fishing villages with the extraordinarily fine type of citizen found there—hard working, self-reliant, brave, enterprising men. I do not like to think that men like that, who are ready to risk their lives that we may get our food, should ever fall into the state that so many of them have fallen into between the last war and the present. If my right hon. Friend can do anything to restore prosperity to the industry, he will have done Scotland a very great service indeed.

5.40 p.m.

Major McCallum: As the herring fishing industry has been gone into by other hon. Members, I do not propose to refer to it except to take up my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in his reference to the best herring in the world. He has forgotten the Loch Fyne herring.

Mr. Boothby: I said Scottish herring, and that covers the lot.

Major McCallum: I accept that, but the Loch Fyne herring is the best of the Scottish herring. We have just listened to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Orkney and Zetland (Major Neven-Spence) and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) on the question of the white fish industry, which to my mind is now the most important branch of the Scottish fishing industry to be dealt with. One or two speakers have

expressed doubts about what is to come out of the Herring Fishing Act passed in the previous Session. I feel that we should wait to see what advantage and benefit will be derived in due course, but we are very worried as to the position in white fishing. The two hon. Members who have just spoken are engaged on the Commission and have spoken of matters with great technical knowledge. It is to be hoped, therefore, that before long we shall have the benefit of their conferences and negotiations and that some recommendations will be brought before the Government to resuscitate the white fish industry. I know whole areas in the islands off the West coast of Scotland which used to be busily engaged in the white fish industry, and now there is not a single boat or crew to go out.
In trying in a small way to resuscitate this industry, I have taken occasion to put one or two questions to my right hon. Friend as to what assistance fishermen can get by way of loans or grants for boats. The last reply I had was that the question of boats for the inshore and white fishing industry was being referred to the Scottish Council of Industry. Again I hope that something definite will come out of that very quickly. I wish to refer to one question which has not been stressed sufficiently to-day, and that is faulty distribution. I have referred my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food on many occasions to this question, and I am told that the best possible distribution is made. I would ask him, however, if it is commonsense that while fish are caught round the coast of Scotland towns and villages within a mile or two of where they are caught cannot get fish by hook or by crook. Fish are landed on the Mull of Kintyre and are passed to the rail head at Oban, yet I have had complaints from the Oban local authorities that there is often not a fish to be had there. One of the most important things in connection with the fishing industry to be overhauled is fish distribution.

5.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Johnston): As the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) indicated, this problem can be divided broadly into two parts. There is not only the problem of production, but the problem of distribution. The problem of production is one to which the Government had given anxious and detailed


attention during the past few years. This year our Herring Industry Bill indicated the method of approach to that problem. It passed the House unanimously, and I believe that it affords hope to all the herring fishermen who are producing a commodity which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said, is second to none in nutrition. So far as production is concerned, I think the herring industry has set sail for a bright future. On the productive side of white fishing, I can speak for only a moment or two. I feel particularly impressed with the experiments being conducted at Loch Sween. It may be that exaggerated ideas are abroad as to the economic effects of those experiments. Nevertheless, it is true that they can by certain devices feed the plankton and in turn feed the larvæ, which in turn feed the fish, so that they can multiply by 300 per cent. the rate of growth of flat fish in our sea lochs. That is a hopeful experiment in multiplying the food resources of the world, and it may, indeed, be a considerable advantage not only to the people of this country, but to other nations as well.
The hon. Member who opened the discussion referred to the general importance of this industry in our national economy. To everything he said Ministers assent most heartily. In the last pre-war year, 1938, we produced £16,500,000 worth of fish food consisting of herring and white fish and a little in shell. We provided in this industry, either directly or indirectly—indirectly much more than directly—employment for 150,000 men. It is a large and considerable industry. Indeed, no Government could afford to ignore the importance of such an industry in the national economy, and certainly this Government does not. An hon. Gentleman opposite asked a question which was promptly replied to by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food, as to what preparations were being made for distributing the product. That is a large issue and one which would require a considerable measure of public time to discuss. We are taking steps to increase the consumption in the home market, for instance through the schools. A considerable step has been taken through the schools and by teaching our girls how to cook fish. Apart from raising the home consumption, the hon. Gentleman asked what is being done with a view to selling surplus products abroad.
While my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food said that S.H.A.E.F. this year had taken the entire surplus, with the exception I think of about 1,500 tons that have gone to the Mediterranean white fish market—[Interruption]—they are not the sort of red herrings to which my hon. Friend is referring. The point we have to make up our minds about is that the products of our waters, our sea fishing, should be used first of all for the proper sustenance of the people of this country. Priority in our markets should go here, but we ought to take steps to ensure that there are no restrictions in production until everyone gets enough. That is the policy that the present Government is pursuing. Twelve slipways have been put at the disposal of shipbuilders for the building of 12 new trawlers—certainly a small number, but it is a beginning, even during the war. We hope to see that our industry is equipped, partly from the stocks presently in the possession of the Admiralty, and it may be partly from foreign sources. We hope to see that our industry is equipped at the earliest possible moment with men and boats, efficiently provided, to ensure that our markets will be properly supplied. What more anyone can do than that in the middle of war is beyond me. We have indicated to our Herring Industry Board the lines of our approach, how we think part of the industry can be organised. We go further and say that the home market shall be stimulated in every possible way; and thirdly, we are prepared to organise the proper distribution of the surplus products abroad.
The Government have no possible ground for objecting to any comments that have been made here to-day. On the contrary, we welcome the interest that the House of Commons shows in this great industry. The fact that every Minister concerned has sat on these benches to-day is an indication of our interest in this matter. We can certainly give the assurance not only that anything and everything that can be done will be done to ensure that in the future this great fishing industry of ours in all its phases, herring, white fish, shall be an efficient producer of food, but that we shall assist it to organise its markets. The old chaotic conditions of glut and slump, of scramble—starvation to-day, prosperity to-morrow—must be evened out, and anything and everything His Majesty's Government can


do towards that end not only will be done but is being done now.

Mr. Boothby: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that his Department and the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture are in contact with the Admiralty with regard to the release of craft suitable for fishing after the war?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, most certainly. It is an obvious sort of thing which we have been doing.

Mr. Boothby: You never know with the Admiralty.

Mr. Johnston: It is impossible during the war for us to do more than we are now doing, that is to get a promise from the Admiralty that at the earliest possible moment ships and personnel will be released for this industry.

Mr. Loftus: Is a survey being made of these boats with regard to which are suitable for fishing and which of these boats must be scrapped?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot answer that question. I do not know where these trawlers are; the Admiralty know, we do not. All we have is an assurance that at the earliest possible moment every vessel will be returned.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something on the point about designating these fishing districts as Development Areas?

Mr. Johnston: That is rather outside the scope of the discussion this afternoon. In a Debate at an early date the President of the Board of Trade will be dealing with that matter. I can assure the hon. Member that the interests of the fishing industry in this country are not being lost sight of.

Major Neven-Spence: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the White Fish Commission was set up but it had only just got into the saddle when war broke out. It produced a Report which I have seen, a very valuable Report with a lot of useful points in it, which will be of the greatest interest to all branches of the fishing industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that that Report is published as soon as possible?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot give an answer to that offhand. It may not lie within my

jurisdiction to give an answer. I will look into the matter and let the hon. and gallant Member know.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: When my right hon. Friend is making representations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the return of boats, will he do something about getting permission granted for a considerable number of working men, miners in my constituency, along the coast, to be allowed to go out and fish with their boats from the shore?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot guarantee that.

Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain McEwen.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Select Committee appointed to consider every Statutory Rule or Order (including any Provisional Rule made under Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893) laid or laid in draft before the House, being a Rule, Order, or Draft upon which proceedings may be taken in either House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent, or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments:
(ii) that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specifie provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period:
(iii) that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made:
(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication of it:
(v) that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation:

Captain Crowder, Mr. Owen Evans, Mr. Thomas Fraser, Mr. Furness, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr.


Molson, Mr. Petherick, Mr. Ellis Smith and Mr. E. P. Smith.

To have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker;

Power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, and to report from time to time:

Power to require any Government Department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any Rule, Order, or Draft which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such Rule, Order, or Draft:

Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House should be drawn to any Rule, Order, or Draft the Committee do afford to any Government Department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing such explanations as the Department think fit.

Three to be the Quorum.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Adjourned Debate on Question [30th November], further adjourned till To-morrow.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (ACCOMMODATION)

Resolved:
That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to enquire into the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable."—[Sir Percy Harris.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — POLICE AND CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES (ARBITRATION MACHINERY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

5.59 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to raise a matter about which I gave the Home Secretary notice some time ago. About a year ago, I and other Members of the House of Commons were ap-

proached by representatives of the Auxiliary Police, the war-time body of police, recruited to help the ordinary police forces of the country. They complained, first, about their conditions of service, and, secondly, about the inordinate delay——

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Brown: —as they represented, in getting a reply from the Home Office to the claims that they had advanced. In company with other Members I investigated that position; and I found that there was, as it seemed to me, an extraordinary state of affairs. In the first place, there appeared to be no adequate machinery for settling, by conciliation, disputes about the conditions of service of this very large body of men. In the second place, it appeared that where it was impossible to settle such disputes as might arise by conciliation and agreement, there was no provision anywhere for the settlement of such disputes in the normal way, the common way in England, by reference to an arbitration board. On further investigation it appeared that things were equally unsatisfactory in other services controlled by the Home Office, such as the regular police, the National Fire Service, and the Defence Services created during this war generally. In the case of the regular police, it appeared that they were forbidden to be members of a trade union. It seems that in 1919 there was a strike by the police, which resulted in the passage of the Police Act later that year, which laid down that policemen should not be members of a trade union.
In place of a trade union, and the ordinary negotiation machinery which goes with a trade union, there was created what was known as the Police Federation. This Federation appointed representatives to meet the Home Office from time to time, and that was the only kind of conciliation machinery which existed between the regular police and the Home Office. I was told by representatives of the regular police that the Federation met the Home Office about once a year on the average, and that most of the time of the second meeting of the year was occupied in saying "No" to the claims advanced at


the first meeting. The police to whom I talked were unanimous in the view that that machine was utterly unsatisfactory. Here, again, with the regular police, there was the same feature, that there was no provision for arbitration. The Home Office was judge and jury and recorder in its own cause, and there was no court of appeal against a decision of the Home Office, except this House of Commons. The same general remarks apply to the National Fire Service. That is a wartime creation, and the members of that Service in fact enjoy the privilege, or the opportunity, of belonging to a National Firemen's Association. But here, again, there is no regular conciliation machinery, and no provision for reference to arbitration where disputes cannot be solved by agreement. So with the other Defence Services—the ambulance service and so on.
It seemed to us who investigated the matter that there were three features common to pretty well all these services which come under the control of the Home Office. The first was the absence of adequate conciliation machinery. The second was inordinate delay in dealing with grievances—and any trade union representative will tell the House that the magnitude of the grievance is in direct proportion to the delay experienced in dealing with it. The third common feature was that there was no right of appeal to arbitration against the decision of the Home Office. Some of the delays appeared to be very serious. For example, I was told that the regular police had asked, as early as July, 1943, for the right of appeal to arbitration. They had received no reply at all by July, 1944—when they sent a reminder—and, in August 1944, they were told that the Home Office were still not in a position to reply to that application. In other words, a period of something like 16 months has elapsed since reasoned representations were submitted on this point, and the regular police of this country are still without a reply to the issue which they raised. There appears to be a similar delay with the auxiliary police, who put in an application for an increase of wages as long ago, I think, as September, 1943, and an application for the right of appeal to arbitration as long ago as January, 1944. But they, too, have still received no reply to their representations in that respect.
As against that picture—a picture of inadequate conciliation machinery, protracted delay, and no right of appeal to arbitration—the regular Civil Service has had properly-constituted Whitley Councils for the last 25 years, and the right of appeal to arbitration in wages disputes and others since 1925. The Prison Officers have had a Whitley Council for some years past, and the right of going to arbitration on wages and other disputes. And the Government, as a whole, has not only cordially recommended employers and employed to settle their disputes by arbitration, but has also, during this war, created a National Wages Tribunal for the purpose.
In the light of what we discovered, hon. Members of this House—and they were Members of all parties in the House, and not merely Members of my own—sent a deputation to the Home Secretary which made a reasoned presentation of the case as we saw it, and pleaded that, as an issue of principle, there ought to be proper conciliation machinery in these Services and a normal right of appeal to arbitration where cases could not be settled by agreement. I have forgotten the precise date of that deputation, but it was some time before the Summer Recess and, if I say it was in the neighbourhood of three or four months ago, I think it will probably be about right.
The Home Secretary met us with his accustomed courtesy, and promised to go into the representations that we submitted, but, although I have written to the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly, on behalf of this all-party group, on a number of occasions since, I have not been able to get any reply to the representations that we then made. What is in the mind of the Home Secretary I do not pretend to know, and the only indication of difficulty that we had when we saw him was his reference to the fact that some of these services, and especially the regular police and auxiliary police, were what he described as "disciplined services," that is to say, services where men were under, not a military discipline, but a quasi-military discipline, where one man says unto another "Go," and he goes, unto another "Come," and he cometh, and, to a third, "Do this," and he doeth it, and that this distinguished these services from others in which conciliation and arbitration machinery existed. It would


be unjust to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gave us a final reply on the question, but he hinted at this as a difficulty.
Now the very fact that these are disciplined services is not an argument against the provision of the necessary conciliation and arbitration machinery, but rather an additional argument in support of it. Or, to put it differently, the more disciplined the service is in this respect, that is to say, the more helpless the individual is to enforce his own rights, the more he is precluded from having a trade union of the ordinary type, the more essential it is that he should feel in his own mind that there is other adequate machinery for the settlement of his grievances, and that he is not dealing with a Department which is judge and jury in its own cause. All service is disciplined, from domestic service to divine service. There can be no service that is not disciplined. But the more the discipline is of a military or quasi-military character, the more essential it is that the helpless member of that service should be satisfied that there is adequate machinery for dealing with his grievances.
The last point is that, in the absence of such machinery as I have asked for and am asking for now, the men in the service have only one court of appeal open to them. They are public servants, and their only court of appeal ultimately is to this House of Commons. In the absence of such machinery as I appeal for, they are bound to bring to us their grievances about wages, hours, subsistence allowance, overtime, promotion, and so on. I wish to assert, first, that this House is not a body suitably composed for passing detailed judgment upon an unlimited number of wage claims. We are not so constituted as to be the most desirable body to discharge that function. The second observation is that it is wholly undesirable in the public interest that the conditions of public servants, whether they are in the so-called disciplined services or the wider Civil Service, should be the subject of a "dutch auction" between rival parties in this House. That is quite undesirable. If we are not to have that, then we must provide the necessary machinery for settling these things without reference to the House of Commons
I understand that the Home Secretary has been very busy. He has been courteous enough to drop me a note that be-

cause of that he will not be able to be here to-night, and I understand that the Under-Secretary of State is ill, and that, therefore, another hon. Member will be replying for him. I understand that, and I can understand, too, that with the pressure of bombs and doodle-bugs and the rest of it, the Home Secretary's job is not an easy one. But I do not want to take up a great deal of the time of the Home Secretary. He ought to be able to give a decision in principle; he ought to be able to say as a matter of clear principle, "I have decided that there shall be adequate conciliation machinery for the adjustment of these difficulties, and where that conciliation machinery does not produce agreement there ought to be the right of access to an independent arbitration court, which every other Government Department is prepared to accept." Every other Government Department accepts it. The House provides for it in all disputes between members of the public and the Crown. If the Crown takes our land, and we do not like the price, we have the right of appeal to an independent body. If the Minister of Pensions, whom I see sitting on the Front Bench, does not give one of our constituents a square deal, or we think he does not, although he always desires to do so, we have the right of appeal to a tribunal. There should always be a court of appeal from the overwhelming power of the State. It is in pretty well every Act of Parliament we discuss here. It is observed by every Government Department in its relations with its staff. I can see no reason whatever why this particular category of people, to the number, in the aggregate, of some hundreds of thousands, should be excluded from the scope of the operation of that simple principle.
Therefore I ask the Home Secretary to take two decisions: one, that there shall be adequate conciliation machinery; two, that there shall be proper access to arbitration. Having taken those decisions in principle, I ask him to tell his civil servants in the Home Office to work out the necessary details, and when these have been worked out, let them be submitted to the Home Secretary and to the Member for Rugby, and between us we shall reach a definite conclusion.

6.16 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): Perhaps I may say,


first, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked me to convey his apologies to my hon. Friend and the House that he is unable to be here to-day. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security is laid up in bed and she cannot be here, and my right hon. Friend has asked me to reply for him. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) for his courtesy in saying that this will be agreeable to him; I hope it will be to the House. My hon. Friend has raised several points to Which I will endeavour to make reply but, in order to do so, it is necessary for me to sketch some of the background of the Civil Defence Services. I should not like to let this opportunity pass, when I am at this Box speaking for the Ministry of Home Security, without paying my tribute to the magnificent work which has been carried out by the Civil Defence Services in this war. As the House knows, these services are made up of the wardens, the rescue parties, ambulance, first aid, and the Civil Defence reserve and also, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, the National Fire Service and the police. The set-up, like many of our successful institutions, is somewhat illogical. Leaving aside for a moment the question of the National Fire Service and the police, to which I would like to refer separately, most of these services are local authority services employed by the local authority but paid by the central Government. We have the position, therefore, of these services having one employer and being paid by somebody else, the whole of course, under the general responsibility of the Minister of Home Security.
Now as regards their rates of pay: these have been based broadly on those of the Armed Forces. To go into one small detail, the Civil Defence rate has been made broadly equivalent to that of a married private with one child——

Mr. W. J. Brown: Except that many of these men are much older than a married private with one child and have, in fact, a wife and several children.

Mr. Grimston: Yes, that is why I used specifically the word "broadly."

Mr. Brown: It is very broad.

Mr. Grimston: The reasons for that are that the work of the Civil Defence

Services is really governed by enemy action; they are, in fact, fighting troops. I think it would be very inviduous to say to a man, "If you have to deal with a bomb at midnight, you will get a different rate of pay from that which you will get if you have to deal with a bomb in the middle of a day," and the ordinary conditions—wage rates and so on—worked out in accordance with industry did not seem to apply to the Civil Defence Services which, as I say, do their work more or less in accordance with the dictates of the enemy.
My hon. Friend has complained of the conciliation machinery which exists and I should like to describe to the House exactly what it is. There is what is called the Joint Consultative Committee which was originally set up when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the Home Office. That Consultative Committee has been set up and is composed, on the workpeople's side, of the representatives of the various unions of which they are members. These unions are the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives and the National Union of Public Employees; the Fire Brigades Union is also represented on the Committee. On the official side, the Committee consists of officials of the various Departments concerned.
I am given to understand that by and large that Consultative Committee has worked with success. The view my right hon. Friend takes now is that here we have, in the fifth year of the war, an organisation which is at present being unwound—we hope we are approaching the end of the war—and it would, therefore, be a great pity to introduce now a radical change in machinery which has, perhaps with some exceptions, in the main worked well. These services are in the process of dwindling. We cannot say that in peace-time they will be disposed of, but their size and activities will be nothing as compared to what they have been, and it does not seem a good moment now to introduce a radical change in the machinery.
I would like to say a few words about the National Fire Service and the police. In pre-war days the fire service was the responsibility of local authorities, but after the outbreak of war it was nationalised. Its future is now, or will be shortly, under


discussion. Obviously, its future in peace-time is a most important matter, and it seems hardly the moment now for a definite decision regarding conciliation machinery to be taken beforehand.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not precisely the moment that it should?

Mr. Grimston: Not before the future of the service is settled.

Mr. Brown: If it be the case that the Home Office are considering the whole future of fire prevention in Britain—because that is what it comes to—surely it is the precise moment when the Home Office ought to decide in principle, whatever the details may be, that one of the characteristics of employment in that service should be that there should be adequate conciliation machinery, and appeal to arbitration where a case cannot be settled.

Mr. Grimston: I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that there must be adequate conciliation machinery, but if discussions are going on as to a future set-up it is a pity to make up one's mind on one item of that set-up before having completed the whole. That is my right hon. Friend's position. I am sure that he is willing to admit that the question of arbitration is arguable, and I am also sure that in considering the future of the service that subject will be bound to come up for consideration. Now I come to the police. As far as the regular police are concerned, their conditions and conciliation machinery are governed by the Act of 1919. Any alteration in that would be a matter for legislation, and although I do not want an easy "get-out" on this I think I should be called to Order if I discussed legislation on a Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Brown: There is nothing in the Police Act of 1919, which I have read with some care, which prevents a decision to-morrow by the Home Secretary that there should be facilities for arbitration in the regular and auxiliary police services.

Mr. Grimston: I am advised that it would mean an Amendment of the Act.

Mr. Brown: That advice is wrong.

Mr. Grimston: Well, we must leave it there for the moment. The pay and conditions of the Police War Reserve are assimilated to the Civil Defence Services, and they have their own machinery,

known as the Auxiliary Police Association. Both that Association and the Police Federation have approached my right hon. Friend on questions of pay and arbitration, and he is going to invite both those bodies to discuss these matters with him.
I agree entirely that many of the matters under discussion are not fit subjects to be brought up on the floor of the House, therefore, partly for that reason, and whilst the hon. Member has every right, and perhaps duty, to bring these matters before the House, I think he will agree that, having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend is going to meet these two bodies, it would be a little indivious for him to make a prior pronouncement on any of the points that are going to be discussed.

Mr. Brown: In view of the very large delay, 16 months in one case and 13 in the other, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Home Secretary is going to meet them?

Mr. Grimston: I cannot give a date, but I understand that it will be quite shortly. As my right hon. Friend is going to meet these bodies, I hope that that will give the hon. Member some satisfaction and that, for the reasons that I have stated, he will be content for the moment to let the matter rest there.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement in the "Fire Fighter" for September, made, I think, by the Secretary of the League of Firemen, an ex-Service organisation either formed or to be formed of members of the N.F.S., in which it was stated that no man would be admitted to membership unless he had become a member of his civilian trade union, whatever that might be, and does he think that entirely desirable in the case of an ex-Service organisation?

Mr. Grimston: I should require notice of a detailed question of that sort. I have not seen the passage in the paper to which my hon. Friend refers. Coming back to the question of the hon. Member for Rugby, I understand that my right hon. Friend hopes to meet the organisations within the next month.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Six o'Clock.